Appellant challenged the Tribunal's finding that the claimant filed a fake insurance claim to extract money. The single-judge appellate court was not persuaded to take a different view and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no interference with Tribunal's finding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AO 622/2015
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondents no. 1 & 2.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.
Having heard learned Counsel of either parties, I feel that the learned Tribunal has disclosed in so many words and with all the disquisitions as to how the claimant has filed a fake claim petition to extract money from the insurance company.
I have not been persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken by the Court below.
Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 4.7.2017
Prabodh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the lower tribunal's finding that the claimant filed a fake petition to extract money from the insurance company.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
Insurance Company and Claimant
Servesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
