Allowed

Anil Kainya v. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2017WP/7202/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed Writ Petition, quashed the trial court's order upholding the 'no W.S.' status, and set aside said order, permitting the petitioner to file a written statement subject to payment of costs due to inordinate but satisfactorily explained delay in filing the same.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; Chamber Summons allowed; order of 'no W.S.' set aside, subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 30,000/- costs to respondent within 2 weeks.

Anil Kainya Vs Hdfc Standard Life Insurance… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

904 WP 7202 OF 2017.odt

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7202 OF 2017

¶5

Anil 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

904 WP 7202 OF 2017.odt

¶15

respective cases on merit so that the matter can be decided Cnally and effectively between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that subject to imposing of certain costs, the petitioner be allowed to Cle 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 Cling 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..

¶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

Anil Kainya v. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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.

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