Partly allowed

N I C Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Apr 2015CMA/3461/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned an impugned judgment and award by the MACT, Ajmer. The Allahabad High Court intervened holding the Tribunal failed to consider material facts and passed the award surreptitiously. The court quashed the award on issue no.4, remanded for fresh decision, and ordered immediate disbursement of 50% of the award to claimants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award on issue no.4 quashed and set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision; 50% of total award directed to be disbursed immediately to claimants.

N I C Ltd. Vs Suresh Chand and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶2

J U D G M E N T

¶3

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.3461/2007 (The National Ins. Co. Vs. Suresh Chand and ors) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07.04.2015

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

Mr.RP Vijay, for the appellant/s Mr.JP Gupta, for respondent-Ins.Company.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing them at length, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Judge, MACT, Ajmer.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/s submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no.4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal.

¶9

E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondent/s defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties

¶11

and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.

¶12

In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this court.

¶13

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua issue no.4 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua issue no.4 in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid appeal and the aforesaid judgment, if applicable and other judgments to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶14

Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 30.9.2015.

¶15

However, it is ordered that out of the total award, 50% amount be disbursed to the claimants immediately after receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶16

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶17

Sandeep/-191

¶18

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.

N I C Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N I C Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and 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

Aslam Vs Peush Mishra and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukesh Chand and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suraj Prakash and Ors.

R S R T C Jaipur Vs Smt Minakshi Agarwal and Ors.

Chanta Vs Shoedan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Dakhan Devi and Ors.