{"id":50444,"date":"1998-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998"},"modified":"2016-12-06T19:10:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-06T13:40:56","slug":"sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","title":{"rendered":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: S.Saghir Ahmad, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSARLA AHUJA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/10\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T.THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 JUDGMENT
\nTHOMAS J.\n<\/p>\n
A widow wants to shift her residence  from  calcutta
\nto  New\t Delhi to occupy her own building which is presently
\nin the possession of her tenant M\/s United  India  Insurance
\nCompany\t Limited.  Though  she got an order of eviction from
\nthe Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi rent
\nControl Act 1958 (for short “the Act”), a  single  judge  of
\nthe  Delhi High Court non-suited her by reversing the roder.
\nShe has sought for special leave to appeal against the\tsaid
\ndecision of the High Court. Leave granted.
\nWhen she filed a case before the Rent Controller her
\nhusband was alive.  By the time her case reached  the  stage
\nof  evidence she became a widow, but that did not affect her
\nclaim for eviction because it was not for  the\tuse  of\t her
\nhusband that  the  building  is required.  At present she is
\nstaying at Calcutta in a flat with her son and\this  family.
\nShe  is\t doing\tbusiness, along with her son, in Patents and
\nTrade Marks.  In connection with the said business they have
\nto be in Delhi quite often.  The  house\t where\tshe  is\t now
\nliving in Calcutta is on the third floor of a building which
\nshe  finds it very inconvenient particularly on account of a
\nknee trouble which she has developed recently.\tAs the house
\nin Delhi is on the ground floor of the building there  would
\nbe no  problem for climbing up the stairs.  Those apart, her
\ndaughter is now staying at NOIDA which in  on  outskirts  of
\nDelhi.\t  The\tRent  Controller,  after  appraisal  of\t the
\nevidence, came to the conclusion that she bona fide requires
\nthe tenanted premises for her  occupation  and\tshe  has  no
\nother suitable residential accommodation in Delhi.
\nBut learned single judge of the High  Court  made  a
\nreappraisal   of   the\tevidence  and  reached\ta  different
\nconclusion by observing that “it was only when\ther  husband
\n(who  was carrying on the business) was alive that she could
\nurge the ground of wanting  to\tlive  with  her\t husband  in
\nDelhi.”\t  Learned   single   judge   pointed  out  that\t her
\nrelationship with her son and daughter-in-law is cordial and
\nthat her family\t is  settled  down  in\tCalcutta  for  long.
\nAccording  to  her knee problem learned single judge noticed
\nthat she has recently moved into  a  new  flat\tat  Calcutta
\nwherein\t a  lift  is  provided\tand  hence she need not much
\nbother about that problem.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for  the  appellant\t–   landlord
\ncontended  that\t the High Court has committed jurisdictional
\ntransgression while exercising\trevisional  jurisdiction  by
\ninterfering  with  the\tfinding\t of  fact  made\t by the Rent
\nController.  We find much force in the said contention.\t The
\npower which the High Court was exercising  is  envisaged  in
\nthe proviso  to Section 25B(8) of the Act.  The said section
\nis one of the three provisions subsumed in Chapter  IIIA  of
\nthe Act which was added to the parent Act as per Act 57\/1988
\nfor “summary trial of certain applications.”
\nSection\t 25B of the Act lays down “special procedure
\nfor the disposal of application for eviction on\t the  ground
\nof  bona  fide requirement.” Sub-section (1) says that every
\napplication  for  recovery  of\tpossession  on\tthe   ground
\nspecified in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act shall be dealt with
\nin  accordance\twiththe\t procedure specified in Section 25B.
\nSub-section (8) says that no appeal or second  appeal  shall
\nlie  against  an order for the recovery of possession of any
\npremises made by the Rent Controller in accordance with\t the
\nprocedure  specified  in  this\tsection.  The  proviso\tthat
\nsub-section reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “Provided  that  the\t High  Court  may,  for\t the
\n\t   purpose  of\tsatisfying itself that an order made
\n\t   by the Controller under this section is according
\n\t   to law, call for the records of the case and pass
\n\t   such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.’
\nThe  above  proviso indicates that power of the High
\nCourt is supervisory in nature and it is intended to  ensure
\nthat  the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the
\norder.\tThe satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the
\nrecords of the case must be confined to the  limited  sphere
\nthat  the  order of the Rent Controller is “according to the
\nlaw.” In other works, the High Court  shall  scrutinize\t the
\nrecords\t  to  ascertain\t whether  any  illegality  has\tbeen
\ncommitted by the Rent Controller in passing the order  under
\nSection 25B.\tIt  is not permissible for the High Court in
\nthat exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the
\nfinding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so
\nunreasonable that no Rent  Controller  should  have  reached
\nsuch a finding on the materials available.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although, the work “revision” is not employed in the
\nproviso\t to Section 25B(8) of the Act it is evident from the
\nlanguage used therein that the power conferred is revisional
\npower.\tIn legal parlance distinction between appellate\t and
\nrevisional jurisdiction\t is  well  understood.\t Ordinarily,
\nappellate jurisdiction is wide enough to afford a re-hearing
\nof the whole case for enabling the appellate forum to arrive
\nat fresh conclusions untrammeled by the conclusions  reached
\nin the\torder  challenged before it.  Of course, the statute
\nwhich provides appeal provision can  circumscribe  or  limit
\nthe width of such appellate powers.  Revisional power on the
\ncontrary,  is  ordinarily  a  power  of\t supervision keeping
\nsubordinate tribunals within the bounds of law.\t   Expansion
\nor  constriction  of such revisional power would depend upon
\nhow the statute has couched such power\ttherein.    In\tsome
\nlegislations revisional jurisdiction is meant for satisfying
\nitself\tas  to\tthe  regularity,  legality  or\tpropriety of
\nproceedings or decisions of the subordinate court.   In\t Sri
\nRaj Lakshmi  Dyeing  Works  vs.\t Rangaswamy<\/a> [1980 4 SCC 259]
\nthis Court considered the scope\t of  the  words\t (“the\tHigh
\nCourt may  call for and examine the records ….  to satisfy
\nitself as to the  regularity  of  such\tproceedings  or\t the
\ncorrectness,  illegality  or  propriety\t of  any decision or
\norder…”) by which power of revision has been conferred  by
\na particular  statute.\tDealing with the contention that the
\nabove words indicated conferment of a very wide power on the
\nrevisional authority, this Court has observed  thus  in\t the
\nsaid decision:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “The\t dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation
\n\t   of  the  words  to  satisfy\t‘itself’  under\t the
\n\t   Section appears to be that the power conferred on
\n\t   the High Court under the Section is essentially a
\n\t   power of superintendence.  Therefore, despite the
\n\t   wide\t language  employed  in the Section the High
\n\t   Court quite obviously should not  interfere\twith
\n\t   findings of fact merely because it does not agree
\n\t   with the finding of the subordinate authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dealing\t  with\tSection\t 32  Delhi  and\t Ajmer\tRent
\n(Control) Act, 1952, which is almost identically  worded  as
\nin  the\t proviso  to Section 25B(8) of the Act a three judge
\nbench of this Court has stated thus in Hari Shankar vs.\t Rao
\nGirdhari Lal Chowdhury<\/a> [1962 Suppl (1) SCR 933]:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “The section is  thus  framed  to  confer  larger
\n\t   powers   than  the  power  to  correct  error  of
\n\t   jurisdiction to which S.115 is limited.   But  it
\n\t   must\t not  be  over-looked  that the section – in
\n\t   spite of its apparent width of language where  it
\n\t   confers  a  power  on the High Court to pass such
\n\t   order as the High Court might  think\t fit,  –  is
\n\t   controlled  by  the\topening words, where it says
\n\t   that the High Court may send for  the  record  of
\n\t   the\tcase  to satisfy itself that the decision is
\n\t   “according to law.” It stands to reason  that  if
\n\t   it  was considered necessary that there should be
\n\t   a rehearing a right of appeal  would\t be  a\tmore
\n\t   appropriate\tremedy,\t but the Act says that there
\n\t   is to be no further appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In Malini   Ayyappa   Naicker  vs.    Seth  Menghraj
\nUdhavadas 1969 (1) SCC 688 another three judge bench of this
\ncourt was considering a similarly worded proviso in  Section
\n75(1) of  The  Provincial  Insolvency  Act  1920.    Though,
\nlearned judges did not give an exhaustive definition of\t the
\nexpression  “according\tto  law”, a catalogue of instance in
\nwhich the High Court may interfere under  the  said  proviso
\nwas given in the decision as the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “They are cases in which the Court which made the
\n\t   order  had  no jurisdiction or in which the Court
\n\t   has based its decision on evidence  which  should
\n\t   not\thave  been  admitted,  or  cases  where\t the
\n\t   unsuccessful party has not been  given  a  proper
\n\t   opportunity\tof  being  heard,  or  the burden of
\n\t   proof has been placed  on  the  wrong  shoulders.
\n\t   Wherever  the  Court comes to the conclusion that
\n\t   the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial
\n\t   according to law, then the Court can interfere.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The bench has, however cautioned that the High Court
\nshould not  interfere  merely  because\tit  considered\tthat
\n“possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a
\nconclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at.”
\nLearned\t Single\t Judge\tof  the\t High  Court  in the
\npresent case has reassessed and\t re-appraised  the  evidence
\nafresh\tto  reach  a  different\t finding  as  though  it was
\nexercising appellate jurisdiction.    No  doubt\t even  while
\nexercising   revisional\t  jurisdiction,\t  a  reappraisal  of
\nevidence can be made, but that should  be  for\tthe  limited
\npurpose\t to  ascertain\twhether the conclusion arrived at by
\nthe fact finding court is wholly unreasonable.\tA reading of
\nthe  impugned  order  shows  that   the\t  High\t Court\t has
\nover-stepped  the  limit of its power as a revisional Court.
\nThe order impugned, on that  score,  is\t hence\tvitiated  by
\njurisdictional deficiency.\n<\/p>\n
\t Clause\t (e)  of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the
\nAct affords one of the\tgrounds\t to  the  landlord  to\tseek
\nrecovery  of  possession  of  the  building leased. The said
\nclause reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “(e)\t that  the  premises  let  for\t residential
\n\t   purposes  are  required bona fide by the landlord
\n\t   for occupation as a\tresidence for himself or for
\n\t   any member of his family dependent on him, if  he
\n\t   is  the owner thereof or for any person for whose
\n\t   benefit  the\t premises  are\theld  and  that\t the
\n\t   landlord  or\t such person has no other reasonably
\n\t   suitable residential accommodation;
\n\t   Explanation:\t  For  the  purposes  of this clause
\n\t   ‘Premises let for residential  purposes’  include
\n\t   any\tpremises  which having been let for use as a
\n\t   residence  are,  without  the  consent   of\t the
\n\t   landlord,  used  incidentally  for  commercial or
\n\t   other purposes.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If   the   landlord    has    another\t residential
\naccommodation\twhich  is  reasonably  suitable\t he  is\t not
\npermitted to avail himself of the benefit  afforded  in\t the
\nground\tset  out  in the clause. Learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court has noted that the  landlord\t in  this  case\t has
\n“admitted in her deposition that the house in Calcutta was a
\n3-bedroom  house  with\tdrawing\/dining\troom  and one of the
\nbedrooms was used by her and other by her son with his wife,
\nand another bedroom was kept for her  daughter\twho  use  to
\ncome  and stay”. This was one of the reasons which persuaded
\nthe learned Single Judge to  interfere\twith  the  order  of
\neviction. To deprive a landlord of the benefit of the ground
\nmentioned  in Section 14(1)(e) on account of availability of
\nalternative residential accommodation, it is not enough that
\nsuch alternative accommodation is in a far different  State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Such  accommodation  must  be  available in the same city or
\ntown, or at least within reasonable proximity thereof if  it
\nis  outside  the limits of the city. The said limb of clause\n<\/p>\n
(e) cannot be interpreted as to mean that  if  landlord\t has
\nanother\t house anywhere in the world he cannot seek recovery
\nof possession of his building under clause (e).\t High  Court
\ntherefore  went\t wrong\tin observing that since the landlord
\nhas  possession\t of  another  flat  at\t calcutta   she\t  is
\ndisentitled  to seek recovery of possession of possession of
\nthe tenanted premises situated at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
The crux of the ground envisaged in  clause  (e)  of
\nSection\t 14(1)\tof  the\t Act  is that the requirement of the
\nlandlord for occupation of the\ttenanted  premises  must  be
\nbona fide.    When  a  landlord asserts that he requires his
\nbuilding for his own occupation the  Rent  Controller  shall
\nnot  proceed  on the presumption that the requirement is not
\nbona fide.    When  other  conditions  of  the\tclause\t are
\nsatisfied  and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it
\nis open to the Rent Controller to draw\ta  presumption\tthat
\nthe requirement\t of  the landlord in bona fide.\t It is often
\nsaid by courts that it is not  for  the\t tenant\t to  dictate
\nterms  to  the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself
\nwithout getting possession of the tenanted premises.   While
\ndeciding  the  question\t of bona fides of the requirement of
\nthe landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as
\nto how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
\nFacts such as the  cordial  relationship  between  a
\nlandlord  and  her daughter-in-law or that he is comfortably
\nresiding in the present building are not relevant in judging
\nthe bona fides of the claim of the  landlord.  Otherwise  it
\nwould  appear  that landlord can think of residing in his or
\nher own residential building only when cracks develop in the
\nrelationship between him and his other kith and kin.
\nIn this case the landlord put  forth  a\t variety  of
\nreasons which persuaded her to seek recovery of the tenanted
\npremises:   (1) That the tenanted building is her own and it
\nis a residential building.  (2) In the\tbuilding  where\t she
\nnow resides at Calcutta her son and daughter-in-law are also
\nliving with  their children.  (3) She and her son have to go
\nto Delhi quite often and stay there for days  in  connection
\nwith their  business.\t (4) Her daughter is living in NOIDA
\nwhich  is  on  the  outskirts  of  Delhi  and  it  would  be
\nconvenient  for\t that  daughter\t to  stay  with\t the  mother
\nfrequently.  (5)  Landlord  is\tgetting\t old  and  developed
\northopedic  problems  and hence she feels that living in the
\nground floor is more advisable.\t (6) The flat in  which\t she
\nlives  now  at\tCalcutta  is  on the third floor whereas the
\ntenanted premises are on the ground floor.
\nRent  Controller  approved the claim of the landlord
\nas bona fide after taking into account the  aforesaid  broad
\naspects.   It  cannot  be  said that the Rent Controller had
\ntaken  into  account  irrelevant  factors  in  reaching\t the
\nconclusion.   Hence  the High Court has improperly exercised
\nits revisional jurisdiction in upsetting the findings of the
\nRent Controller.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we set aside the impugned  order\t and
\nrestore the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and
\ndirect\tthe respondent-tenant to vacate from the premises on
\nor before the expiry of three months from today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: S.Saghir Ahmad, K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: SARLA AHUJA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/10\/1998 BENCH: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T.THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT THOMAS J. A widow wants to shift her residence from calcutta […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - 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\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-06T13:40:56+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T13:40:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2432,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\",\"name\":\"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T13:40:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - 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\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-06T13:40:56+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998","datePublished":"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T13:40:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998"},"wordCount":2432,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998","name":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company ... on 27 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T13:40:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarla-ahuja-vs-united-india-insurance-company-on-27-october-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company … on 27 October, 1998"}]},{"@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\/50444","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=50444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}