Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Sau. Chandrabhaga W/O Ramdas ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7799 Bom

16.FAST.11963.2018.                                                                                            1/2


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                               Civil Application (CAF) No.1087/2021
                                                 AND
                               Civil Application (CAF) No.1088/2021
                                                  IN
                                First Appeal Stamp No.11963/2018
    Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sau. Chandrabhaga w/o Ramdas Sontakke & Ors.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                 Shri D.N. Kukday, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
                 Shri V.D. Awachat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 11th JUNE, 2021.

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

Heard learned Advocate Shri Kukday for the appellant and learned Advocate Shri Awachat for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The notice of respondent No.8-widow and respondent No.9-daughter of the deceased could not be served for want of correct address. Whereas, the notice on respondent No.3 also could not be served. Hence, the direction:

a) Notice be served on respondent Nos.3, 8 and 9 by paper publication.

b) Both civil applications are disposed of.

Civil Application (CAF) No.27/2019

The appellant to take steps for service on respondent

16.FAST.11963.2018. 2/2

No.6.

My attention is brought to the fact of non-deposit of the decretal amount. It is true that stay is granted subject to deposit the decretal amount within a period of four weeks. Admittedly, the appellant has not deposited the decretal amount before this Court. There is a contention that the amount might have been deposited before the Claims Tribunal. If it is not deposited there, the appellant is ready to deposit the decretal amount within a period of five weeks before this Court.

Hence, the appellant to deposit the decretal amount within a period of five weeks before this Court, if it is not deposited before the Claims Tribunal. If such amount is deposited before this Court, stay to the impugned judgment will be revived.

Matter be kept after service.

JUDGE

vijay