Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1361620/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 13616 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3387 of 2010
=========================================================
UNITED
INDIA INSURACE CO. LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 9 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VIBHUTI NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR YF MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
MR VILAV K BHATIA for
Respondent(s) : 5 -
10.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The
present application is for interim injunction pending the First
Appeal against the execution and implementation of the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal.
2. This
Court on 29th November 2011 had passed the following
order:
“Heard
learned advocate for the applicant.
Rule
returnable on 29.12.2010. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatia waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. By way of
ad-interim relief, stay of the operation, implementation and
execution of the Award in question till then, on condition that the
applicants shall deposit the awarded amount with cost and interest
with the Tribunal, on or before the returnable date.”
3. Today,
it has been stated by Mr. Bhatia appearing for the original claimants
– respondents herein that 70% of the awarded amount which was
the liability of the insurance company – appellant herein has
been deposited. Hence, as the condition has been complied with, the
ad interim relief granted earlier shall stand confirmed.
4. We
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and for
the respondents – original claimants on the aspect of
withdrawal.
5. Considering
the facts and circumstances, out of the amount which has been
deposited, as a normal course, 30% of the amount can be permitted to
be withdrawn to the original claimants in one set and 70% of the
amount shall be permitted to be invested. But, it appears that
respondent nos. 8 and 9 are minor and therefore their share, even of
disbursement, will have to be invested until they attain the age of
majority and upon attaining the majority, with interest they can be
permitted disbursement of the said amount. So far as the other
original claimants viz. respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 10 are concerned,
each of them would be entitled to their share being 5% of the total
amount which is already deposited.
6. Hence,
it is observed and directed that out of the amount which has been
deposited by the applicant – appellant, 5% of the amount shall
be permitted to be withdrawn by way of disbursement to each of the
original claimant viz. respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10 herein,
whereas, the share, being 5% each of respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who are
minor, shall be invested with the Nationalised Bank initially for a
period of three years and such investment shall be renewed from time
to time until the concerned claimants attain the age of majority. It
is also observed that upon attaining the age of majority of
respondent nos.8 or 9, as the case may be, they shall be permitted to
encash the F.D.R. and the amount shall be paid to them by A/c. Payee
Cheque, without any further order of this Court.
7. The
remaining amount of 70% shall be invested by the Tribunal initially
for a period of three years and such investment shall be continued
from time to time until the First Appeal is finally disposed of. The
original claimants shall be entitled to periodical interest from time
to time.
8. In
view of the aforesaid order, the presence of the other parties to the
proceedings viz. the owner and the driver of the vehicle, respondent
nos. 2 to 4, would not be required at this stage.
9. Application
allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(Ms.
B.M.TRIVEDI, J.)
jani
Top