Allowed

M/S Ema India Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2021WRIC/22488/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that admitted superannuation funds due to an employer for retirement benefits cannot be withheld merely because a beneficiary has filed a civil suit regarding their share, mandating release of the undisputed amount. The disputed portion should be retained in an interest-bearing account pending suit resolution.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Corporation was directed to release the admitted pension amount to the petitioner within eight weeks and retain the disputed amount in an interest-bearing account subject to the outcome

M/S Ema India Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22488 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Ema India Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Dubey,Alok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Gupta,Siddharth Singhal

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Petitioner had availed of superannuation insurance policy from the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, term whereof has come to an end. The closure amount due and payable in terms of the policy, however, has not been released to petitioner only on the ground that one of the beneficiaries of the policy has instituted an original suit, which is pending. It is admitted to the parties that claim of third respondent, who has instituted the original suit no.1109 of 2016, is to the extent of Rs.17 lacs and odd.

¶6

At the outset, Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner would be willing to give an undertaking that the amount claimed by third respondent under the suit may not be paid to them and be kept subject to the outcome of the pending suit but the balance amount, which is due and admitted, be released to them.

¶7

Sri Ashish Gupta, appearing for the LIC has no serious objection to such a proposal. It is, however, stated that such issues be left open to be resolved by the Ombudsman.

¶8

We find that dispute raised in the present writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. The issuance of insurance policy as also the right of petitioner to receive the closure amount is not in dispute. There is absolutely no injunction granted by the competent court against the release of policy amount. In such circumstances we are of the view that the amounts, which are admittedly due and payable to petitioner, should not be withheld, particularly as this amount is expected to be disbursed to various employees towards their retirement benefits.

¶9

A writ of mandamus, accordingly, is issued to the respondent Corporation to release the amount due and payable under the superannuation fund policy No. GSCA/54241 to the petitioner company, within eight weeks from today. The amount claimed

¶10

by third respondent, which is the subject matter of suit, however, may be retained by the Corporation and its disbursement would remain subject to the orders to be passed in the pending suit. The amount, however, in that regard would be kept in an interest bearing account, so that none of the parties are put to loss for the delay occasioned in the process.

¶11

With the above observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Anil

M/S Ema India Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ema India Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nemi Chand and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Meera Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bazar Vyapari Kalyan Samiti Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Suraj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India and Another