SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1029

R.BANUMATHI
Valliammal – Appellant
Versus
P. Karuppiah & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:C.T. Perumal, Advocate. For the Respondents:-------

Judgment :-

1. Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India declaring to admit E.A. Interlocutory Application in the Execution proceedings in E.A.S.R. No.3677 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2001.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. In M.C.O.P. No.266 of 2001, an award was passed on 16.10.2003, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of Petition till the date of realisation of award amount. To execute the award, the Petitioner had also filed E.P.No.16/2004. In the Execution Petition, the Respondents have also deposited the entire award amount i.e., totalling to a sum of Rs.1,98,452. Claiming a pert of the amount, the Petitioner had filed E.A.S.R.No.3677 of 2005.

That Application was returned by the office of the Executing Court, directing the Petitioner to state whether any application filed by the Petitioner is pending and also directed to obtain endorsement from the Respondents to that effect. It is stated that the Notice had been given to the Counsel on record for the Insurance Company and he has stated that he has no instruction about



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top