Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/6514/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6514 of 2011
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1811 of 2011
======================================
NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI - Petitioner
Versus
DAVID
NADAR @ ARUN NADAR & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
VIBHUTI NANAVATI for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks permission to
delete respondent No.1. Permission is accordingly granted. Respondent
No.1 is ordered to be deleted.
2. RULE
returnable on 16th
August,2011. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para- 6(A) on the
condition that the applicant shall deposit entire amount as awarded
by the learned Tribunal along with proportionate cost and interest on
or before the returnable date. On such deposit, learned Tribunal to
invest 75% with proportionate cost and interest in Fixed Deposit in
any Nationalised Bank in the name of the original claimants initially
for a period of five years, which shall be renewed from time to time
as and when matured. The original claimants shall be permitted to
withdraw periodical interest on the same.
Learned
Tribunal to invest balance 25% with proportionate cost and interest
in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank in the name of the
original claimants initially for a period of five years with
cumulative effect, meaning thereby, the original claimants shall not
be permitted to withdraw the periodical interest on the same. There
shall not be any loan and/or advance on the aforesaid Fixed Deposits,
without prior permission of this Court. FDRs be retained with the
Nazir of the Tribunal. The aforesaid order is passed considering the
nature of controversy raised in the main appeal with respect to
liability of the Insurance Company to pay interest for more than 15
years. It appears that the main claim petition remained dormant due
to non-removal of office objections by the claimants, meaning
thereby, non-paying the Court fees in the claim petition. Though
ordered by the learned Tribunal to pay Court fees in the year 1994
itself, the claimants paid the Court fees for the first time in the
year 2009 and Notice in the claim petition came to be issued by the
learned Tribunal for the first time in the year 2009.
3. Mr.Vibhuti
Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary/ General Manager, Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
& Anr. V/s. S.Kamalaveni Sundaram reported in 2011(1) GLR
(NOC) 2.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top