{"id":241903,"date":"2008-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-25T23:27:01","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T17:57:01","slug":"national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n                Date of Order : August 13, 2008\n\n+                  RFA No.315\/2008 & 316\/2008\n\n%     National Insurance Company Limited ...     Petitioner\n                       Through: Mr.Yogesh Malhotra, advocate\n\n                              versus\n\n      Shri K.L. Juneja & Ors.      ...       Respondents<\/pre>\n
                        Through:   Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia and
\n                                   Ms. Sanjana Vikal, Advocates.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
\nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR<\/p>\n
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
\n   be allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
\n   in the Digest?\n<\/p>\n
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL)<\/p>\n
Caveat Petition No.53\/2008 in RFA No.315\/2008<\/p>\n
      Since Caveators appear through counsel on advance copy<\/p>\n
being served, the caveat stands disposed of.<\/p>\n
RFAs 315 & 316\/2008<\/p>\n
1.          ADMIT.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.          Learned Counsel for the respondents who has lodged<\/p>\n
a caveat on behalf of respondents accepts notice of admission of<\/p>\n
the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                          Page No.1 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 3.          Since the appellant has filed true copy of the records<\/p>\n
of Suit No.143\/2005 and Suit No.298\/2005, it is agreed between<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties that the trial court record need<\/p>\n
not be summoned and printing of paper book be dispensed with<\/p>\n
and matter heard today itself.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.          Heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
5.          RFA No.315\/2008 lays a challenge to the decree<\/p>\n
passed by the learned trial Judge in Suit No.143\/2005. The suit<\/p>\n
was filed by the appellant. Prayer made in the suit was to pass a<\/p>\n
decree against the respondents in sum of Rs.3,04,224\/- with<\/p>\n
further prayer that interest be also granted to the appellant @<\/p>\n
12% per annum from date of suit till date of realization.<\/p>\n
6.          By way of RFA No.316\/2008 the appellant challenges<\/p>\n
the decree passed in Suit No.298\/2005 which was filed against<\/p>\n
the appellant by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.          Both suits i.e. Suit No.143\/2005 and 298\/2005 have<\/p>\n
been disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 30 th<\/p>\n
April, 2008 by the learned trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.          As noted above, appellant herein who was the plaintiff<\/p>\n
of Suit No.143\/2005 has suffered a dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
Respondents who were the plaintiffs of Suit No.298\/2005 have<\/p>\n
obtained a decree in sum of Rs.6,78,632\/- against the appellant<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                            Page No.2 of 12<\/span>
\n together with interest @6% per annum from the date of suit till<\/p>\n
realization.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.             Briefly noted, the relevant facts are that a jural<\/p>\n
relationship     was   created   between   the   appellant   and   the<\/p>\n
respondents when a lease deed dated 18th January, 1999<\/p>\n
(Ex.PW1\/2) was executed creating a tenancy in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant under the respondents in respect of the subject<\/p>\n
property with effect from 23rd February, 1998.<\/p>\n
10.            The tenancy was for a period of nine years. Obviously,<\/p>\n
the tenancy would have expired on 22nd February 2007.<\/p>\n
11.            By January 2005 the agreed monthly rent payable was<\/p>\n
Rs.1,40,408\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.            The appellant desired to terminate the tenancy and<\/p>\n
accordingly wrote a letter informing the respondents that it<\/p>\n
intends to vacate the tenanted premises. Respondents were<\/p>\n
informed that by way of security deposit they were holding a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.5,85,040\/-. It was informed that possession would be<\/p>\n
surrendered by the end of February, 2005. Appellant informed<\/p>\n
the respondents that they may appropriate part of the security<\/p>\n
deposit towards future rent.\n<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                             Page No.3 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 13.         Respondents       reconciled   to   the     premature<\/p>\n
determination of the tenancy evidenced vide Ex.PW1\/5. The same<\/p>\n
is a memo recorded at the tenanted premises on 28th February<\/p>\n
2005 when first respondent, Shri K.L. Juneja, who is husband of<\/p>\n
second respondent and is the father of the third respondent went<\/p>\n
to the site intending to receive possession. But he did not do so.<\/p>\n
The reason was certain breakages noticed in the tenanted<\/p>\n
premises.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.         After recording in Ex.PW1\/5 the breakages in the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises, an agreed note was appended at the bottom<\/p>\n
of the memo recording as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      ”Possession shall be handed over\/taken over               on
\n      completion\/rectification and balance security shall        be
\n      refunded after adjusting due rent for the month.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
15.         In token of execution the memo, Ex.PW1\/5, has been<\/p>\n
signed by Shri K.L. Juenja, respondent No.1, recording him to be<\/p>\n
the owner and Lalit Pandey, the representative of the appellant.<\/p>\n
16.         Vide Ex.PW1\/6, being a letter dated 03.03.2005,<\/p>\n
written by the appellant to the respondents, with reference to the<\/p>\n
breakages listed in Ex.PW1\/5, appellant informed the respondents<\/p>\n
that all breakages at site have been rectified. In relation to the<\/p>\n
tax deducted at source certificate which was to be issued it was<\/p>\n
informed that the same would be ready and handed over to the<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                           Page No.4 of 12<\/span>
\n respondents     on   7.3.2005.   Said   date   was   notified   to   the<\/p>\n
respondents requiring their presence at site so that they could<\/p>\n
receive possession of the tenanted premises, with further request<\/p>\n
that after adjusting the rent payable for the month of January and<\/p>\n
February 2005 as also for the seven days of the month of the<\/p>\n
March 2005 balance security deposit may be refunded to the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.          In spite of receipt of Ex.PW1\/6, none reached the site<\/p>\n
from side of the respondents requiring the appellant to hand<\/p>\n
deliver a letter on 8.3.2005, Ex.PW1\/7. The letter was delivered to<\/p>\n
the respondents informing that the respondents did not visit the<\/p>\n
site to receive the possession on 7.3.2005. Respondents were<\/p>\n
advised to reach the premises on 11.3.2005 at 14.00 hours so<\/p>\n
that possession could be handed over.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.          The respondents did not reach the tenanted premises<\/p>\n
on 11.3.2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.          On 18.4.2005, since the said position continued till<\/p>\n
then, appellant caused to be served on the respondents a legal<\/p>\n
notice, Ex.PW1\/8. Referring to the lease deed dated 18.1.1999,<\/p>\n
Ex.Pw1\/2, and the subsequent events relatable to the memo<\/p>\n
dated 28.2.2005 (Ex.PW1\/5) and subsequent correspondence,<\/p>\n
appellant informed the respondents that the appellant would not<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                              Page No.5 of 12<\/span>
\n be liable for any dues post 28.2.2005. A demand in sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,04,224\/- was made informing the respondents that they<\/p>\n
were holding security in sum of Rs.5,85,040\/- and were entitled to<\/p>\n
adjust the rent payable for the months of January and February<\/p>\n
2005 @ Rs.1,40,408\/- per month, totaling Rs.2,80,816\/-. (It be<\/p>\n
noted that Rs.3,04,224\/- is the remainder after subtracting<\/p>\n
Rs.2,80,816\/- from Rs.5,85,040\/-).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.         The legal notice, Ex.PW1\/8, was responded to by the<\/p>\n
respondents vide their lawyer’s reply dated 29.4.2005, Ex.PW1\/9.<\/p>\n
21.         The respondents took the plea that the tenancy was<\/p>\n
for an agreed period of nine years and hence could not be<\/p>\n
terminated prior to 22.2.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22.         On the situation aforesaid, the appellant had no option<\/p>\n
but to file a suit for recovery of the balance security deposit held<\/p>\n
by the respondents after adjusting the rent for 2 months liable to<\/p>\n
be adjusted from the security deposit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.         The suit was filed somewhere in the month of July,<\/p>\n
2005. After narrating the afore noted facts, decree in the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,04,224\/- was prayed for. Interest @ 12% per annum from<\/p>\n
the date of suit till date of realization was also prayed for.<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                              Page No.6 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 24.          Needless to state the amount claimed in the suit was<\/p>\n
Rs.5,85,040\/- – Rs.2,80,224\/- = Rs.3,04,224\/-.<\/p>\n
25.          Appellant’s suit was met with a counter suit filed by<\/p>\n
the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.          The respondents claimed a decree in the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,63,672\/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the<\/p>\n
date of the suit till date of realization.<\/p>\n
27.          Needless to state the claim in the suit was the rent<\/p>\n
payable with effect from 1.1.2005 till 30.9.2005 @Rs.1,40,408\/-<\/p>\n
per month.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.          It be noted that the respondents’ suit was filed on<\/p>\n
12.9.2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
29.          After recording evidence, by a common judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 30.4.2008, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of<\/p>\n
the appellant and decreed the suit filed by the respondents but<\/p>\n
restricted the decree to Rs.6,78,632\/-, for the reason the learned<\/p>\n
trial Judge gave adjustment of Rs.5,85,040\/- (the security amount<\/p>\n
already held by the respondents) from out of the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,63,672\/- being the rent held payable by the appellant to<\/p>\n
respondents for the months of January 2005 till the end of<\/p>\n
September 2005 i.e. nine months.\n<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                           Page No.7 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 30.          The decision of the learned trial Judge is based on a<\/p>\n
single reasoning.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31.          With reference to the lease agreement, Ex.PW1\/2,<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge has held that the lease was for a fixed period<\/p>\n
of 9 years and that commencing from 23.2.1998 it was expiring<\/p>\n
on 22.2.2007. Finding that there was no covenant in the lease<\/p>\n
empowering the tenant to determine the lease except on account<\/p>\n
of the property being destroyed, noting that the property was not<\/p>\n
destroyed, learned trial Judge held that the appellant was liable<\/p>\n
to pay rent to the landlord till the lease period expired on<\/p>\n
22.2.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
32.          Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge fell in error in completely ignoring Ex.PW1\/5,<\/p>\n
the memorandum dated 28.2.2005. Counsel urges that the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the law of contract<\/p>\n
does not prohibit or prevent parties from novating the contract by<\/p>\n
agreed consent. Learned counsel urges that the memorandum<\/p>\n
dated 28.2.2005 evidences agreement between the parties that<\/p>\n
the tenancy would stand determined when the appellant rectifies<\/p>\n
the defect noted in the memorandum Ex.PW1\/5.<\/p>\n
33.          With reference to the letters, Ex.PW1\/6, (dated<\/p>\n
3.3.2005) and Ex.PW1\/7 (8.3.2005), learned Counsel urges that<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                           Page No.8 of 12<\/span>
\n the same reflect that the conditions of the memo Ex.PW1\/5 were<\/p>\n
fully complied with in as much as the rectification work was<\/p>\n
completed and possession offered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
34.         Confronted with the aforesaid submissions, except to<\/p>\n
urge that the case was never projected as aforesaid before the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge, learned counsel for the respondents has no<\/p>\n
submission to make.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
35.         We note from the pleadings of the appellant in the suit<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant that the appellant has made a reference in<\/p>\n
para 6 of the plaint to the memorandum drawn between the<\/p>\n
parties on 28.2.2005.         The appellant has also referred to the<\/p>\n
subsequent letters issued by the appellant and served upon the<\/p>\n
respondents pointing out that the defects required to be rectified<\/p>\n
as per the memorandum dated 28.2.2005 were rectified and in<\/p>\n
spite thereof the respondents did not take possession of the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises. Thus, the argument urged as herein today,<\/p>\n
namely that the appellant did not project its case as it is sought<\/p>\n
to be urged before us is not correct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
36.         We need hardly write much more.          We have noted<\/p>\n
herein above the relevant contents of the memorandum dated<\/p>\n
28.2.2005, Ex.PW1\/5.\n<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                             Page No.9 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 37.         The memorandum clearly records the consent of the<\/p>\n
landlord to receive possession of the tenanted premises when the<\/p>\n
defects noted in the memorandum stand rectified. We note that<\/p>\n
the defects were rectified by 3rd March 2005 and due intimation<\/p>\n
thereof was given to the respondents. We also note that it is not<\/p>\n
the case of the respondents that defects were not rectified.       It<\/p>\n
was also not the case of the respondents that appellant had not<\/p>\n
vacated the premises and vacant physical possession thereof was<\/p>\n
not offered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
38.         The novation of the original lease is writ large on the<\/p>\n
face of the memorandum recorded on 28.2.2005. The intention of<\/p>\n
the parties is clearly reflected. The intention is the agreement<\/p>\n
between the parties: for the landlord to take over possession and<\/p>\n
for the tenant to hand over possession when defects stood<\/p>\n
rectified. It would not be out of place to record that the<\/p>\n
memorandum further records that on rectification of the defects<\/p>\n
possession shall be handed over\/taken over and balance security<\/p>\n
amount shall be refunded after adjusting the rent due.<\/p>\n
39.         Parties could not have reflected their intention with<\/p>\n
more clarity.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
40.         It is unfortunate that the learned trial Judge has<\/p>\n
ignored the material documents and relevant evidence which has<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                          Page No.10 of 12<\/span>
\n been noted by us hereinabove. Learned trial Judge has totally<\/p>\n
eschewed the principle of novation of a contract. Learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge has not kept in mind that nothing prevents the parties to a<\/p>\n
contract to, by consent, novate the contract.<\/p>\n
41.          For the reasons noted hereinabove, the two appeals<\/p>\n
stand disposed of as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (a).   RFA No.315\/2008 is allowed. Impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
      decree dated 30.4.2008 dismissing Suit No.143\/2005 is set<\/p>\n
      aside. The suit filed by the appellant is decreed in sum of<\/p>\n
      Rs.2,54,402\/-. The said sum has been calculated after<\/p>\n
      giving credit of rent to the respondents for the months of<\/p>\n
      January, 2005, February, 2005 and upto 11th of March, 2005<\/p>\n
      for the reason by said date the appellant had informed the<\/p>\n
      respondents that the defects being rectified, respondent<\/p>\n
      should take over possession of the tenanted premises. We<\/p>\n
      grant interest to the appellant on the said sum @ 6% per<\/p>\n
      annum from the date of the suit till date of realization.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b).   RFA No.316\/2005 is allowed. Impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
      decree dated 30.4.2008 decreeing Suit No.298\/2005 in sum<\/p>\n
      of Rs.6,78,632\/- with pendente lite and future interest is set<\/p>\n
      aside. Suit No.298\/2005 is dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                            Page No.11 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 42.          We propose not to pass any order pertaining to costs<\/p>\n
except directing that proportionate court fee paid by the<\/p>\n
appellant in Suit No.143\/2005 would be paid by the respondent to<\/p>\n
the appellant as also the proportionate court fee paid in RFA<\/p>\n
No.315\/2008.      Full court fee paid by the appellant in RFA<\/p>\n
No.316\/2008 shall also be paid by the respondents to the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                  SUNIL GAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
August 12, 2008
\nDKG<\/p>\n
RFA Nos.315\/2008 & 316\/2008                         Page No.12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Date of Order : August 13, 2008 + RFA No.315\/2008 & 316\/2008 % National Insurance Company Limited … Petitioner Through: Mr.Yogesh Malhotra, advocate versus Shri K.L. Juneja & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2173,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008"},"wordCount":2173,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008","name":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T17:57:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-sh-k-l-juneja-ors-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. K.L.Juneja & Ors. on 13 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}