Disposed

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2020I.A.(Civil)/528/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application prayed for modification of an earlier order regarding insurance matter. The court clarified that no further deposit was needed as 50% was already lodged and permitted respondents to withdraw such amount after identity verification.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that no further deposit is required and allowed respondents to withdraw the already deposited amount after identity verification.

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010036492020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 528/2020

¶5

1:THE IFFKO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶6

A JOINT VENTURE OF INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LIMITED AND THE TOKIO MARINE AND NICHIDO INSURANCE CO. LIMITED HAVING ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT 42A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO. 3A, EXPRESS TOWER, KOLKOTTA-700017

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SMTI. NIBHA DEVI AND 2 ORS.

¶9

W/O LATE MUKESH KUMAR CHAURASIA, R/O VILL-RASIDPUR, P.O.BACHHWA, P.S.-BACHHWA, DIST-BEGUSARAI, BIHAR, PRESENT ADD-R/O VILL-BENGENAKHOWA, P.O.-GOLAGHAT, P.S.-GOLAGHAT, DISTGOLAGHAT, ASSAM

¶10

2:SMTI. RAJKUMARI DEVI W/O SRI HARE RAM CHAURASIA R/O VILL-RASIDPUR P.O.-BACHHWA P.S.-BACHHWA DIST-BEGUSARAI BIHAR PRESENT ADD-R/O VILL-BENGENAKHOWA P.O.-GOLAGHAT P.S.-GOLAGHAT DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶11

3:DINESH KUMAR S/O SRI MADAN PRASAD R/O H/N-725 SANTNAGAR OLD FARIDABAD DIST-FARIDABAD

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

HARYANA PINCODE-12100

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S KHANIKAR

¶16

Linked Case : MFA 19/2019

¶17

1:THE IFFKO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶18

A JOINT VENTURE OF INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LTD. AND THE TOKIO MARINE and NICHIDO INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED and HEAD OFFICE AT 42A SHAKESPEARE SARANI 3RD FLOOR FLAT NO. 3A EXPRESS TOWER KOLKATA 700017

¶19

VERSUS 1:SMTI NIBHA DEVI and 2 ORS W/O LATE MUKESH KUMAR CHAURASIA 2:SMTI RAJKUMARI DEVI W/O SRI HARE RAM CHAURASIA BOTH ARE R/O VIL. RASIDPUR P.O. BACHHWA P.S. BACHHWA DIST. BEGUSARAI BIHAR PRESENT ADDRESS R/O VILL. BENGENAKHOWA P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶20

3:SRI DINESH KUMAR S/O SRI MADAN PRASAD R/O H/N 725 SANTNAGAR OLD FARIDABAD DIST. FARIDABAD

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

HARYANA PIN 121002

¶23

(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE No. HR-38-U-9672 (1109 TRUCK))

¶24

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S KHANIKAR

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Date : 01-06-2020

¶29

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Khanikar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

¶30

This IA has been filed with a prayer to modify the order dated 13/03/2019 passed by this Court in IA(C) No. 83/2019, arising out of MFA 19/2019, directing the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,64,900/- before the Employees Commissioner, Golaghat as a condition for stay of execution of the impugned award.

¶31

Mr. Goswami submits that it has subsequently come to his notice that an amount of Rs. 10,64,900/- being 50% of the award was already deposited with the Employees Commissioner, Golaghat even before the order dated 13/03/2019 was passed by this Court. Therefore, there was no further requirement to deposit the amount by his client as per the order dated 30/03/2019. In support of his above argument, Mr. Goswami has also invited the attention of this Court to the deposit receipt annexed to the IA as Annexure-II.

¶32

Ms. S. Khanikar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 confirms the submission of the applicant’s counsel but has made a prayer that her clients be allowed to withdraw the aforesaid amount lying with Employees Commissioner, Golaghat in connection with GEC Case No. 03/2006. Mr. Goswami submits that he would have no objection if the said prayer made by Ms. Khanikar is allowed by this Court.

¶33

In view of the above, I dispose of the IA by clarifying that no further amount is required to be deposited by the applicant in terms of the order dated 13/03/2019. The respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are granted leave to approach the learned Employees Commissioner, Golaghat, for withdrawing the amount already deposited being 50% of the award.

¶34

It is also made clear that if an application is made by the claimants/opposite party nos. 1 and

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

2 for withdrawal of the amount, the same may be released in their favour only after proper verification of the identity of the claimants.

¶37

IA stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Sukhamay

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

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

Ajijur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Rohitash Kumar Jat @ Rohitash Jat Vs the State of Assam

Babul Lahon Vs State of Assam

Davraj Dutta Vs Smti. Alaka Goswami @ Aruna @ Alaka Bordoloi

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Musstt. Mina Begum and 2 Ors.

Sabita Devi Vs Golaghat Municipal Board and 3 Ors.