Gujarat High Court High Court

Oriental vs Rasilaben on 22 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Oriental vs Rasilaben on 22 March, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/708/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 708 of 2011
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 4857 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================


 

ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

RASILABEN
RAMESHBHAI KHANT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MAULIK J SHELAT for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 - 4. 
- for
Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

Date
: 22/03/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present application is for interim injunction pending the First
Appeal against the execution and implementation of the judgement and
award passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the concerned
first appeal. So far as it relates to the liability of the
applicant-appellant insurance company, this Court on 24.01.2011 had
passed the following order:

“Rule
returnable on 28th February, 2011. Stay of operation, implementation
and execution of the Award on condition that the applicant-appellant
Insurance Company deposits the amount of compensation awarded with
costs and interest to the extent of liability of the appellant with
the Tribunal within four weeks.”

Mr.Shelat,
learned counsel states that the amount has already been deposited.

Hence,
ad interim injunction granted earlier shall stand confirmed.

It
appears that the respondents-original claimants are already served
but nobody appears on their behalf. Mr.Sunil Parkh appears for
respondent No.4, one of the insurance company. Hence, the matter is
not considered on the aspects of permission for withdrawal.

Under
the circumstances, the Tribunal shall invest the amount in the Fixed
Deposit Receipt initially for a period of 3 years. It is also
observed that the original claimants shall be at the liberty to move
this Court for seeking withdrawal of the appropriate amount.

Application
allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(H.B.

ANTANI, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top