Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case originates from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Mr. Hari Kannan in a road accident. Hari Kannan, riding a borrowed motorcycle, was fatally injured when an unidentified car collided with him. The claimants, including his wife, daughter, and parents, sought Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 129 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contested a judgment from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation for the death of Bindhumol, who died in an accident while riding as a pillion passenger on a two-wheeler driven by her husband. The accident occurred when the two-wheeler collided with a parked lorry. The minor daughter of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

The Insurance company, the appellant, argued that the deceased’s failure to wear a helmet contributed to her fatal injuries.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Claim for Compensation – The appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased, Shruthi Lavanya, who died in a road accident while riding pillion on a two-wheeler. The claimants sought compensation attributing negligence to the two-wheeler rider and vicarious liability to its owner and insurer.

The insurer contested the claim, arguing that the FIR indicated the lorry driver was the tort-feasor and should have been impleaded. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, concluding the accident resulted from the lorry driver’s negligence.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, concerning an accident on 14.02.2020, where the claimant sustained severe injuries, including a crush injury to her left leg, ultimately leading to amputation. The claimant sought Rs. 30,00,000 in compensation, while the appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle, disputed the claim, alleging contributory negligence and lack of a valid driving license.

The Tribunal awarded the claimant Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case involves appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award regarding a fatal accident. Sabu James, a pillion rider, died after a collision between the motorcycle he was on and an auto. His family claimed compensation, alleging negligence by the auto driver.

The Insurance Company contested the claim, citing a delayed FIR and questioning the accident’s genuineness.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This is an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation to the petitioner, Balasubramaniyan, who sustained grievous injuries in a road accident. The insurance company contested both the liability and the quantum of compensation.

The petitioner, a science and education graduate working in Singapore, was hit by a tourist van driven rashly. The accident caused severe head injuries leading to 75% dementia, rendering him unfit for employment.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – This appeal contests the dismissal of a suit for specific performance concerning an agreement for sale of Kudivaram rights in land. The appellant (plaintiff) claimed the defendants (1 to 5) breached the agreement after receiving Rs. 40 lakhs as advance. The defendants denied the agreement’s validity, alleging it was created on blank stamp papers and disputed the payments.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 5,25,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the accused, disbelieving the complainant’s version and finding the accused’s version more probable.

University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification on Remittance and Refund of Fees and Other Student-centric Issues, December 2016 – This case involves a dispute over fee refunds for students who enrolled in Law courses at Saveetha School of Law. The students sought refunds because the institution initially lacked recognition from the Bar Council of India (BCI). The writ court initially ordered the appellant to refund the entire fee collected from the students.

The appellant argued that a refund policy, based on UGC guidelines, was outlined in the prospectus and agreed upon by the students.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 16, 101, Sections 47 and 151 – This revision petition was filed by third parties challenging the dismissal of their execution application, which they filed under Order 21 Rule 101, Sections 47 and 151 of CPC. The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of half of a land parcel (S.F.No.289/1) based on a 1978 sale deed to their predecessor, Murugasamy Gounder.

The core issue revolved around conflicting claims and alleged fraudulent manipulation of revenue records (specifically survey numbers) in prior suits. The petitioners argued that a decree obtained in O.S.No.487 of 2008 was collusive and could not be executed against their property due to their settled possession and errors in mutation.