Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai v. Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2021IA/2400/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge interim application where appellant, an insurer, sought leave to withdraw compensation deposited for the first instance award. Court allowed withdrawal of 60% subject to undertaking to return funds if final appeal succeeds.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw 60% of deposited compensation with interest, subject to undertaking to return amount if appeal is allowed.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

13-ia-2400-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2400 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.12336 OF 2021

¶4

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant/Appellant vs.

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.12.07 18:31:02 +0530

¶7

Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Pandit Kasar, for the Applicant/Appellant Ms. Varsha Chavan, for the Respondent No. 1.

¶10

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 07, 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw

¶14

the application as there is no delay in preferring the appeal, if the period of pandemic is excluded from the computation.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid submission, the application for delay stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ insurer.

¶17

This application is preferred seeking permission to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the respondent No. 1 in terms of judgment and award dated 15^th January, 2021 passed in MACP No. 1334 of 2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT,

¶18

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

...1

13-ia-2400-2021.doc

Mumbai.

The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the prayer for withdrawal.

¶23

Having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the applicant, it may be expedient to allow the applicant to withdraw 60% of the amount of compensation deposited by the respondent/ insurer subject to usual undertaking.

¶24

Hence, the following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1] The application stands allowed.

¶27

2] The applicant is permitted to withdraw 60% of the amount of compensation deposited by the respondent/insurer along with interest accrued thereon, subject to furnishing an undertaking before the Tribunal to bring back the amount in the event the appeal is allowed and it is held that the applicants-claimants are not entitled to the compensation.

¶28

3] The application stands disposed of.

¶29

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶30

...2

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai v. Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai v. Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay B. Khanna and 2 Ors. Vs Kulbhushan Ramnath Khanna and 4 Ors.

The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Satara Vs Ismail Amir Attar and Ors.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs 1. Smt. Vajarabai Narayan Sadaram and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs Reshma Tanaji Lohakare and Anr.

Union Bank of India, Mumbai Vs Suman Agarwal Carrying on Business in the Firm and Style of M/S.Shri Sai Trading Co.of Sole Prop.