Allowed

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Dy. Manager (Legal), Krishnakant M. Samtani, Nagpur v. Vilas S/O Suryabhan Gabhane and Another

Bombay HC2 Jan 2023CAF/1661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a respondent's application to withdraw 50% of the total deposited decretal amount of Rs. 11,72,457/- to meet livelihood needs. It also stayed the execution of the impugned judgment following the appellant's compliance with earlier conditional orders.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to respondent to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount on usual undertaking; execution of impugned judgment stayed.

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Dy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

31.CA-2920.22

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.645 OF 2022

¶5

(MAGMA HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Vilas s/o Suryabhan Gabhane and anr.)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri A.P. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.P. Mirache, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED :- JANUARY 02, 2023.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the appellant seeking time to supply correct and detailed address of respondent No.2.

¶12

On his application, stand over to 24/01/2023.

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2920 OF 2022

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Present application is preferred by respondent No.1 – original claimant for seeking permission to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant before this Court. While preferring an appeal, the appellant has deposited 50% of decretal amount as under :

¶16

Rs.11,47,457/- vide CCD No.29873, dated 15/09/2022

¶17

Rs.25,000/-, vide CCD No.29667, dated 08/07/2022

¶18

Thus, total amount of Rs.11,72,457/- is lying in this Court.

¶19

¶20

31.CA-2920.22

¶21

It is contended that respondent No.1 has suffered 80% permanent disability as his right leg is amputed above the knee and is unable to earn his livelihood. He requires the amount for any standing businees for his livelihood as well as he has obtained hand loan for his treatment. It is further contended that at present respondent No.1 is depending upon the other family members due to his disability.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the appellant strongly objected the application on the ground that the Insurance Company has taken the statutory defences and the Insurance Company has every chance of success in the present appeal.

¶23

If the entire amount is withdrawn by respondent No.1, it would be difficult for the Insurance Company to recover the same.

¶24

Heard both the sides. Perused the record. 7. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, 50% amount from the deposited amount can be disbursed to respondent No.1.

¶25

In the above circumstances, respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw 50% amount of Rs.11,72,457/- on furnishing usual undertaking.

¶26

The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶27

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1661 OF 2022

¶28

In view of order dated 08/09/2022, the appellant has complied the conditional order on

¶29

¶30

31.CA-2920.22

¶31

which the stay to effect and operation of impugned judgment, was granted.

¶32

In view of the compliance of the earlier order, the execution and operation of impugned judgment is stayed, till final disposal of the appeal.

¶33

The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶35

*Divya

¶36

Signed By:DIVYA SONU BALDWA Personal Assistant Signing Date:03.01.2023 10:39

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Dy. Manager (Legal), Krishnakant M. Samtani, Nagpur v. Vilas S/O Suryabhan Gabhane and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Dy. Manager (Legal), Krishnakant M. Samtani, Nagpur v. Vilas S/O Suryabhan Gabhane and Another

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

Smt. Sandhya Suresh Dangri Vs State of Maha., Rural Development and Water Recourse Dept., Mumbai Thr. Minister/ Secy. and Ors.

Dr. Sau. Nanda Rajendra Vaidya vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ballarpur Tah.Ballarpur Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Narendra Sureshrao Bawankar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

Vidarbha Irrigation Devp. Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Washi Vs Rukhmabai Wd/O. Bhanudas Mapari and Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Nagpur Vs Gayatri Wd/O Rameshwar Dahare and Others

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Yavatmal Const. Proj. Div., Yavatmal Vs Sanjay Atmaram Tarte and Others