Allowed

Neelam a. Kainya v. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2017WP/6271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition challenging a trial court's order dismissing a chamber summons seeking to set aside an order of 'no written statement.' The High Court, weighing substantive justice against inordinate delay, quashed the lower order and allowed the summons subject to a cost deposit of Rs. 30,000 to be paid within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the order of 'no W.S.' is set aside, and the chamber summons is allowed subject to the deposit of costs of Rs. 30,000 within two weeks.

Neelam a. Kainya Vs Hdfc Standard Life… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

34 WP 6271 OF 2017.odt

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2017

¶5

Neelam A. Kainya … Petitioner V/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd … Respondents

¶6

Ms. Gayatri Sharma i/by M/s S. K. Shrivastav & Co., for the Petitioner Ms. Rachika Dave I/by Asim Vidyarthi, for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATE : 19^th DECEMBER, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1] Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel

¶11

for the respondents.

¶12

2] By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6^th February, 2017, whereby the Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner for setting aside the order of “no W.S.” came to be dismissed.

¶13

3] The reasons given are that there was inordinate delay and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. However, having regard to the substantive cause of justice which always requires that both the parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to put up their 1/2

¶14

34 WP 6271 OF 2017.odt

¶15

respective cases on merit so that the matter can be decided finally and effectively between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that subject to imposing of certain costs, the petitioner be allowed to file his written statement so that the matter before trial Court will be decided on merits.

¶16

4] Having regard to the fact that there is delay of 3 ½ years in filing of written statement, it would be just and proper to allow the Chamber Summons subject to imposing costs of Rs.30,000/- for setting aside the order of s “no W.S.”

¶17

5] Accordingly Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the petitioner's Chamber Summons for setting aside the order of “no W.S.” is quashed and set aside.

¶18

6] In consequence, the Chamber Summons is allowed and the order of “no W.S.” is set aside, subject to petitioner's depositing or paying costs of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by trial Court.

¶19

7] Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

8] Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶21

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶22

2/2

Neelam a. Kainya v. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam a. Kainya v. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Ashwini Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Thru. Chairman Shri Prakash Anant Valame Vs Laxmanrao Shankarrao Sinde (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors.

Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Jitendra M. Thakker and Ors. Vs Jibhau Dadaji Sonawane and Ors.

Sachin Dilip Shahane and Ors. Vs Vaibhavi @ Pratisha Sachin Shahane and Anr.

Ashok Shankar Sontakke and Anr. Vs Sharad Shankar Sontakke and Ors.

Uday @ Nachiket Prabhakar Pethe Vs M/S. M.D. Enterprises and Ors.

Anil Kainya Vs Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.