IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A.No.300 of 2008
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ... ...Appellant
-Versus-
Most. Simla Devi & Others. ... ... ...Respondent(s)
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): XXX
-------------
05/ 13.01.2009
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated
15.04.2008 passed in Contempt Case No. 810 of 2007 whereby the Single
Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice had directed the appellant M/s Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. to look into the matter in regard to the payment
which was claimed by the Respondent No.1 (Most. Simla Devi) by way of
group insurance as her deceased husband was holder of a policy of
insurance in a Group Insurance Scheme. The Hon’ble Court had directed
that appellant M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. will look into the
matter and make payment to the parties through the employer company-
Central Coalfields Limited.
This appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid
observation passed in the Contempt Case on the plea that appellant M/s
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is not liable to make the payment since
the claim of the respondent-widow is time barred and it was also
submitted that the direction could not have been issued as M/s Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. had not been impleaded as a party either in the
writ petition or in the Contempt proceeding.
In the first place the office objection has been raised in
regard to the maintainability of this appeal which is directed against the
order passed in a Contempt Petition dropping the contempt proceeding by
merely directing the appellant-Insurance Company to make the payment
which it was liable to make through the Central Coalfields Limited.
Counsel for the appellant relied upon an authority reported in (2006) 5
Supreme Court Cases 399 (Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others
Vrs. Chunilal Nanda & Others) in support of his submission that a Letters
Patent Appeal can be held maintainable even against the order passed in
a contempt proceeding.
Even if this submission were to be accepted as correct in
view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the fact remains that the order
under challenge does not require interference. The appellant-Insurance
Company had been directed merely to look into the matter and make the
payment through the Central Coalfields Limited. If the Insurance Company
2.
has any reason not to make the payment, it has obviously to correspond
with the Central Coalfields Limited in this regard assigning reasons. Hence
the direction issued in the contempt petition is not fit to be assailed at the
instance of the appellant-Insurance Company as the contempt proceeding
in any case had been dropped.
This appeal, therefore, has no substance and hence it is
dismissed.
[Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.]
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./S.B.