Disposed¶31

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Menka

Delhi HC18 Mar 2026CM(M)/474/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; consumer dispute execution; stay vacated for non-compliance restored; four-day delay in FDR deposit of decretal amount condoned; NCDRC SA/144/2026; SCDRC FA/624/2025 IA/59/2026; DCDRC-VI New Delhi CC No. 14/2024; EA/129/2024 warrant of attachment; Star Health and Allied Insurance Co Ltd v. Menka; High Court of Delhi; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.; decided 18.03.2026; petition disposed, stay continued till disposal of State Commission appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of four days in depositing the amount directed by the State Commission's order dated 23.12.2025 condoned; operation of the District Commission's order dated 03.11.2025 stayed till disposal of the appeal before the State Commission; the petition and pending applications disposed of on these terms. ¶31

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Menka — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the four-day delay by the petitioner (judgment debtor) in depositing the amount directed by the State Commission's order dated 23.12.2025, which had led to the vacation of the stay on 17.02.2026, should be condoned and the stay of the District Commission's order dated 03.11.2025 restored till disposal of the appeal before the State Commission.

¶25

Court's answer

The four-day delay in depositing the amount ordered vide the State Commission's order dated 23.12.2025 is condoned.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The operation of the District Commission's order dated 03.11.2025 is stayed till the disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.), CM(M) 474/2026, disposed of orally on 18.03.2026. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co Ltd (judgment debtor/appellant) filed an Article 227 petition against Menka seeking to set aside (i) the NCDRC order dated 27.02.2026 in SA/144/2026, (ii) the SCDRC order dated 17.02.2026 in IA/59/2026 in FA/624/2025 vacating its earlier stay, and (iii) the DCDRC Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 in EA/129/2024, arising from the District Commission-VI (New Delhi) order dated 03.11.2025 in CC No. 14/2024. By order dated 23.12.2025 the State Commission had stayed the District order subject to deposit of the balance decretal amount by way of FDR; the stay was vacated on 17.02.2026 for non-compliance. On being told that the deposit had in fact been made with only a four-day delay, the Court condoned the delay and stayed the operation of the District Commission's order dated 03.11.2025 till disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission; the petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 18^th March, 2026

¶4

- CM(M) 474/2026, CM APPL. 14302/2026, CM APPL. 15169/2026 & CM APPL. 15170/2026

¶5

STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shishir Mathur and Ms. Muskan Tyagi, Advocates along with Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, AR of the petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

MENKA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Tusha Chawla and Mr. Shripal, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶10

ORDER (Oral)

¶11

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶12

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following prayers:

¶14

“a. Allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the Petitioner company in SA/144/2026; and/or b. issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the SCDRC against the Petitioner company in IA/59/2026 in FA/624/2025; and/or

¶15

c. issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 issued by the Ld. DCDRC in EA/129/2024;”

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 474/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:37:24

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that she does not want to file any reply to the present petition.

¶20

Matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard. Record perused.

¶21

Vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 03^rd November, 2025, which reads as under:

¶22

“Subject to the deposit of balance of the decretal amount with this Commission by way of FDR, the operation of the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate,- New Delhi in CC No. 14/2024 is stayed till further orders.”

¶23

Vide order dated 17^th February, 2026, the aforesaid stay was vacated on account of non-compliance of the order dated 23^rd December, 2025 by the petitioner/judgment debtor. The said order reads as under:

¶24

“Since the appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 23.12.2025 within time, the stay granted vide order dated 23.12.2025 stands vacated.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount, as directed vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025, has already been deposited, with a delay of four (4) days.

¶26

Keeping in view the facts that the amount as ordered vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025 has already been deposited and there is only a delay of four (4) days and the same is condoned. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated 03^rd November, 2025 of the District Commission is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal as pending before the State Commission.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

CM(M) 474/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:37:24

¶31

The present petition is disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶32

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶33

MARCH 18, 2026/ V/ABK

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 474/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:37:24

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders sought to be set aside/quashed in the petition: (i) order dated 27.02.2026 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in SA/144/2026; (ii) order dated 17.02.2026 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in IA/59/2026 in FA/624/2025 vacating the earlier stay; (iii) Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 issued by the DCDRC in EA/129/2024. The primary impugned order (prayer a) is the NCDRC order dated 27.02.2026 in SA/144/2026.¶14
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) · 27.02.2026
Prior proceeding
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi District), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi passed its order dated 03.11.2025 in CC No. 14/2024 (the order under execution/challenge).¶22
Prior proceeding
By order dated 23.12.2025 the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stayed the operation of the District Commission's order dated 03.11.2025, conditional on deposit of the balance of the decretal amount with the State Commission by way of FDR.¶22
Prior proceeding
On 17.02.2026 the State Commission vacated the stay of 23.12.2025 on account of the petitioner/judgment debtor's non-compliance within time; this order was challenged in IA/59/2026 in FA/624/2025 (prayer b).¶24
Prior proceeding
A Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 was issued by the DCDRC in EA/129/2024 (execution proceedings arising out of CC No. 14/2024); it was sought to be quashed in prayer (c) of the petition.¶15
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's appeal FA/624/2025, with interlocutory application IA/59/2026, is pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; the SCDRC order dated 17.02.2026 in IA/59/2026 therein was challenged in this petition.¶14
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the petitioner stated the amount directed by the order dated 23.12.2025 had already been deposited with a delay of four days; the Court accepted this and condoned the delay.¶26

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Menka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Menka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita Gupta Vs Sumit Gupta

Gurjit Singh Handa Vs Sher Singh Handa

Anu Goyal Proprietor Sagar Industries Vs Saurabh Gupta Proprietor Shri Kishan and Co.

M/S Alka Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S Intec Capital Limited

Shiv Kumari Vs Salahuddin Nizami

Asian Merchants and Co. Vs Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd.

Surbhi Vs Naveen Kumar

Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited Vs M/S Industrial Fuel Research Corporation

Gurjit Singh Handa Vs Sher Singh Handa

Anu Goyal Proprietor Sagar Industries Vs Saurabh Gupta Proprietor Shri Kishan and Co.

M/S Alka Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S Intec Capital Limited

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Priya Devi

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited Vs Priya Devi

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sonia Singh