Disposed

Asha Sugriv Narsinge and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Signatory Aurangabad and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2017CA/15289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court clarified a Registry confusion regarding the withdrawal of a deposited decree amount. It directed the Registry to disburse 40% to surviving applicants, clarifying that no deceased applicant could withdraw funds.

What did the court decide?

Directed Registry to disburse 40% of deposited amount to applicants Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Asha Sugriv Narsinge and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Signatory Aurangabad and Ors. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 922-CA-15289-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15289 OF 2017 IN CA/488/2017 IN FAST/33868/2016

¶4

ASHA SUGRIV NARSINGE AND ORS VERSUS

¶5

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AURANGABAD

¶6

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Manoj Shinde h/f Mr. Sachin S. Panale Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sayali Tekale

¶7

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶8

DATED : 19^th DECEMBER, 2017.

¶9

Order :-

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company in present Civil Application. None appears for rest of the respondents.

¶11

Perused the application. The applicants moved application No. 488 of 2017 seeking permission to withdraw the decreetal amount deposited in this Court. After hearing, this Court allowed the applicants to withdraw 40% of the amount deposited in this Court on furnishing solvent surety and rest of the 60% amount was directed to be invested in FDRs account.

¶12

Learned counsel fervidly contends that this Court while passing the order mentioned that the applicants are permitted to withdraw 40% of the amount deposited in this Court. He pointed out that applicant No. 3 Sudam Shankar Narsinge though was shown in the array of applicants, but he was no more and therefore, he was shown dead in the application. Despite the

¶13

2 922-CA-15289-17

¶14

same the Registry of this Court is reluctant to allow the applicants for withdrawal of 40% of the amount deposited in this court. Registry of this Court seeks explanation about the circumstances that how dead persons can be allowed to withdraw his share deposited in this Court. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for modification and clarification of the impugned order for withdrawal of the amount passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 488 of 2017.

¶15

In view of aforesaid submission, it appears that there is confusion created by the Registry in regard to disbursement of amount deposited in this Court in favour of applicants. The applicant No. 3 Sudam was already shown as deceased in application No. 488 of 2017. In such circumstances, it is preposterous to draw the inference that this court allowed the deceased Sudam himself for withdrawal of his share in the compensation amount deposited in this court. Be that as it may, Registry is hereby directed to disburse the 40% of the amount deposited in this Court in favour of applicants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as directed by this Court under order in Civil Application No. 488 of 2017. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

¶16

Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE

¶19

MTK.

Asha Sugriv Narsinge and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Signatory Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Sugriv Narsinge and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Signatory Aurangabad and Ors.

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

Shriniwas Babarao Patil. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

The Executive Engineer Aurangabad Vs Mahadeo Sauda Chavan and Another

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Strengthening Divn, Omerga Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Vs Vishwanath Krishna Khandekar (Died) Thr Lrs Gayabai and Ors.

The G M I D C Thr the Executive Engineer Vs Shamrao Abhiman Died Thr Lrs Sheshrao Shamrao Bhadarge and Others

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. Vs Moharya Motiram Valvi