Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. v. Abdul Gafoor and 4 Others

Telangana HC21 Oct 2021CMA/811/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited against a decree and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation due to non-prosecution when no representation was made by the appellant on the day of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed for non-prosecution.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs Abdul Gafoor and 4 Others — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HrcH "ou*If3$rrso#E l

¶3

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER} ' ' '"'^'""iro iHousRt'to AND TWENTY^oNE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{Dr' JUSTICEG'RADHARANI}

¶7

CIVIL MISCEL ANEO S APP^A NO:8^{11 0F} 2 07

¶8

Appeal Under^{Section 30 of W'C Act againstthe decree and award} passed in W.C.No.1^{of 2006dated '16-03-2007 on the file of the Court of the} Commissioner^{for Workmen's Compensationand Assistant Commissioner of} Labour -lll^{at HYderabad}

¶9

Between:

¶10

The New lndia^{Assurance CompanyLimited'} .^{ReD bv its Manaqer'} p.v.v.suibrahmanyam, s/o"i/eJ* dJ;o,^{tvlotor Third Party claims cell, 5-2-} iz+)i rr,liJ""^{rrrrohdn Building'll Floor, R P' Road, Secunderabad'}

¶11

...APPELLANT/^{Opposite party No'2}

¶12

AND

¶13

Abdul Gafoor S/o lt/d.^{Hussain, aged 75 years,}

¶14

¶15

¶16

l,4aster Abdul Ashraf, Sio^{Abdul Rasheed, minor aged14 years'}

¶17

tr/aster Abdul Arif, S/o^{Abdul Rasheed, minor, aged12 years,}

¶18

tt/aster Abdul Ameer, S/o Abdul^{Rasheed minor, aged10 years}

¶19

(Resoondents No. 2 to 4 are minors represented by their Grand Father^and hatuial^guardian Respondent^No.1)

¶20

All are Fl/o H.No.9-3-262160128,^{Bibikachasma, Jahanuma,Hyderabad.} Presently PJo H.^{No.3-6-147 l2l 5, Himayathnagar}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO^4/CLAIMANTS

¶22

Sri li/ohd. Rizwan Ahmed,^{S/o Sri Mohd. Rafeeq, age: major Rl/o H No'20-} 7-525 Fateh Dawvaza, HYderabad.

¶23

( R 5 - dismissed for defautt vide C.O. dated^30-03-2016 )

¶24

...RESPONDENT No.5 / Opposite^{party No.1}

¶25

lA NO:2 oF 2018

¶26

Petition under Order 9 Rule 9^{R/w. Sec. 151 CPC prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the petition,the High} Court may be^pleased set aside^{the order of dismissal of appealagainst} Respondent No.5 / Respondent No.1^{dated 30-03-2016 and restorethe appeal} against Respondent No. 5 / Respondent^{No 1 and equity}

¶27

CMAMP, N O:1837 OF 2007

¶28

Betwe en:

¶29

' flij:lr$#:or^{S/o Md HussainRvo H.No.3-6-142t2/s,Himayathnasar} 2. Master Abdul Ashraf, S/o Abdul Rasheed minor aged 14 years Fl,/o ^ H.. No.3-6-1 47 t2t5, Himyathnaqai, Hvd"i"bii' J. Master Abdul Arif, S/o Abdul Rashe6d, minor, aged 12 years R/o H.No.3_ .^{6-1471215, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad}

¶30

1. Master Abdul Ameer,^-S/o Abdul Rasheed minor, aged 10 years Ryo _^{H. No. 3-6-1 47 I 2l S. Himayathna gar,} HyderabJd Responderts No. 2 to 4.are min-ors reip bv th"ir grand father and naturar guardian Respondent No..1 ..^petitioners / Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶31

AND

¶32

Sri Mohd. Rizwan Ahmed, S/o Sri Mohd. Rafeeq, age: major R:/o H.No.20_ 7-525 Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad.

¶33

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, | ! !.S9rlrgnmanyam,^{S/o MeeraSaheb, MotorThirdpa-rtyCtaims ieil,} 5-2-17412 Madan Mohan Building, ll Floor, R.P. Road, Secur-iderabad. ( R -1 is not a necessary party)

¶34

.. Responcrents / Appeilant

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circr,rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate in interim stay orders passed in CMP No.1532 of .2007 in CMASR No.36724 of 2007 dated 24.08.2007

¶36

CMAMP. NO: 1851 OF 2007

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings including execution of the order and decree passed in WC No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-lll, Hyderabad District pending disposal of CMA.

¶38

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶39

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higrh Court may be pleased Condone the delay of 656 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal of appeal against Respondent No.5 / Respondent No.1 dated 30-03-2016 and restore the appeal against Respondent No.5/ Respondent No.1.

¶40

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRIMAN (Not Present)

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI V. ATCHUTA RAM

¶42

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶43

CML MISCEL,LANEOUS^{APPEALNo.811 OF2OO7}

¶44

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE^{G. RADHA RANI,}

¶45

ORDERT

¶46

On 18.03.2021 there was no^{representation on behalf of the} appellant. Hence, the matter^{was directedto be listed on 31.03.2021 for} dismissal.

¶47

Today when the matter is called,^{there is no representationon} behalf of the appellant.^{Hence, the appealis dismissed for non-} prosecution.

¶48

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pending in the appealshall stand}

¶49

closed. No costs.

¶50

SD/-K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY' I\LL

I\LL

SECTION^OFFICER

Tl'*," Corrissioner^{for Workmen's CompensationandAssistant} commissioner^{ot r-aoo'i-*rii ai Hyaeratiao( with records)} , 5;;'ii];s;i^{siirJ". Advocate[oPUc]}

¶55

One CC^{to Sri V. Atchuta Ram' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶56

Two CD CoPies

¶57

One SPare^CoPY Kul gbr

HIGH COURT

)

DATED: 2111012021

JUDGMENT

lrre SlAr€
e
oo-) ,02 Novi-llt
I
I
* l)

CMA.No.8'11 of²⁰⁰⁷

DISMISSING THE^MACMA

FOR NON PROSECUTION

6
Io

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. v. Abdul Gafoor and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. v. Abdul Gafoor and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddipet Muncipal Councel Rep by Commr,Siddipet and 2 Others Vs M/S Balaji Borewell Rep. by Its Proprietor, Siddipet

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shaik Chand Basha and 4 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt R. Sandhya

M/S. Kerla Ayurvedic Vidyashala Prop., Dr. M. L.Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another

Syed Zulfikar, Hyd and 3 Othrs., Vs Smt. Nusrath Sultana, Hyd and Anr.

D.Rameswar Rao (A-1) Sec-Bad and 5 Otrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.