Skip to main content

A person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him : Madras HC Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/a-person-who-enjoyed-the-benefit-of-an-interim-order-is-liable-to-compensate-the-other-party-when-the-main-case-is-decided-against-him-madras-hc/

Madras High Court has observed that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him. Division Bench comprising of Justices V.Ramasubramanian and N.Kirubakaran made this observation in S.Ramesh vs. M/s.Cethar Ltd. The writ petition seeking police protection, filed by Management of a company was allowed, by a final order by single bench subject to the condition that the total amount of around Rs.80, 00,000/-, available partly with the Indian Bank and available partly with the Advocate commissioner shall be disbursed to the 130 permanent employees of the company with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Union. The Single Judge also held that the workers have no right to take the law into their hands and obstruct the goods being taken out, thereby infringing the rights of third party customers.  The police was also directed to give protection to the management to remove the materials. Aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union preferred Appeal. On Appeal, setting aside the judgment, the Division Bench observed thus “the management has removed part of the goods on the basis of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge while appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the management cannot any more lay a claim for an amount of around Rs.80,00,000/- now lying in fixed deposit, as it represents not only the salary payable to the workers for the undisputed period but also represents the value of the goods removed, pursuant to the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. It is needless to point out that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him”

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/a-person-who-enjoyed-the-benefit-of-an-interim-order-is-liable-to-compensate-the-other-party-when-the-main-case-is-decided-against-him-madras-hc/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more