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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of four days in depositing the decretal amount condoned; operation of the District Commission's order dated 07.11.2025 stayed till disposal of the Appeal pending before the State Commission; petition disposed of on these terms and pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 27.02.2026 (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IA/63/2026 in FA/618/2026), 11.03.2026 (warrants of attachment) and 13.03.2026 (bailable warrants) in EA/128/2025 should be quashed and set aside. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

The operation of the District Commission's impugned order dated 07.11.2025 is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal pending before the State Commission.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J., oral order dated 18.03.2026) in CM(M) 555/2026 - STAR HEALTH ADN ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD (petitioner) v. MENKA (respondent): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging (i) the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi order dated 27.02.2026 in IA/63/2026 in FA/618/2026 vacating the stay granted vide order dated 23.12.2025 (which had stayed the District Commission's order dated 07.11.2025 in CC No. 274/2024 subject to deposit of the balance decretal amount by way of FDR), and (ii) the District Commission's orders dated 11.03.2026 and 13.03.2026 in EA/128/2025 issuing warrants of attachment against the petitioner's banker and bailable warrants against its bank official. Held: the amount directed vide order dated 23.12.2025 having already been deposited with a delay of four days, the delay was condoned and the operation of the District Commission's impugned order dated 07.11.2025 stayed till disposal of the Appeal pending before the State Commission. Petition and pending applications disposed of on these terms. No monetary figure for the decretal amount is stated in the judgment.

$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18^th March, 2026

- CM(M) 555/2026, CM APPL. 16845/2026 &CM APPL. 16846/2026 STAR HEALTH ADN ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD

.....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Shishir Mathur and Ms. Muskan Tyagi, Advocates along with Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, AR of the petitioner. versus

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

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

“a. issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IA/63/2026 in FA/618/2026; and/or

b. issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi issuing Warrants of Attachment against the Banker of the Petitioner in EA/128/2025; and/or

c. issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi issuing

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 555/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30

Page 1 of 3

Bailable Warrants against the Bank official of Banker of the Petitioner in EA/128/2025;”

Learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

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

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

Vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 07^th November, 2025, which reads as under:

“Subject to the deposit of balance of the decretal amount with this Commission by way of FDR, the operation of the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate,- New Delhi in CC No. 274/2024 is stayed till further orders.”

Vide order dated 27^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:

“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.”

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.

Keeping in view the facts that the amount as ordered vide order dated

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 555/2026

Page 2 of 3

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30

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 07^th November, 2025 of the District Commission is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal as pending before the State Commission. The present petition is disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

MARCH 18, 2026/ V/ABK

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 555/2026

Page 3 of 3

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30