Chennai Court January 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Andal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC52
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Friday, the 4th Friday, the 11th Monday the 21st days of November 1988, and on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers. in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. Bagheerathi Narayanan of M/s. A.R. Ramanathan, P. Sukumar and J. Zeenathunissa, Advocates for the Appellant and of Mr. A.N. Viswanatha Rao advocate for the 1st Respondent and notice to the 2nd Respondent having been dispensed with and he remained absent and set ex-parte in the lower court the court made the following order:2. The Insurance Company, which had been directed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the legal representative of the victim of the accident, has filed the present appeal challenging its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.3. Facts briefly are : -The deceased Mani, aged 26, working as a Fitter in Sri Sakthi Industries in Poon...
K. Ponnumuthan Vs. K. Sathiadas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ93a
S.T. Ramalingam, J.1. The question of law raised in this second appeal is whether the first appellate court is right in decreeing the suit relying upon the report and plan of a first Commissioner which has been superceded by the trial Court by appointing a second Commissioner. My answer to this question is that basing the conclusion on the basis of report and plan prepared by the first Commissioner whose report and plan has been superseded by appointment of a second Commissioner with the consent of parties is contrary to the provisions of Order 26, Rule 10(3), C.P.C. If authority is needed it is available in Kunhi Kutti Ali.v. Md. Haji A.I.R.1931 Mad.73. Since the first appellate court has accepted the report and plan of the first Commissioner which has been admittedly superseded by appointment of Second Commissioner, the judgment and the decree of the first appellate court are not sustainable. With a view to solve the disputes between the parties, I set aside the judgment and decree o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›