Bombay High Court
Shila Mahakali Pamulwar And ... vs Bhagshree @ Sonu Babulal Nagrale ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 385320.21. 1/3 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3853/2021
Sau. Shila and another V Bhagyashree @ sonu and others
************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
************************************************************************************
Mr. H.S. Chitaley, Adv. for petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Dhore, Adv. for resp. no.1.
Ms. T. Khan, AGP for resp. no.2.
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Adv. for resp. no.3.
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 24-01-2023
The petition challenges the order dated
22-11-2019, passed by the learned trial Court below exh-5,
whereby the application for grant of temporary injunction
was partly allowed by restraining the respondent no.2/
Insurance Company from disbursing the amount payable
against the two life insurance policies in favour of defendant
no.1 to her during the pendency of the suit. In Appeal by
the judgment dated 16-03-21, while partly allowing the
appeal, the learned appellate Court has maintained the
order as passed by the trial Court restraining defendant
no.2 from disbursing the amounts payable under the life
insurance policies to the defendant no.1. However,
defendant no.3, the employer of the deceased Nagesh, has
also been restrained from disbursing 50% of the amount of
gratuity and other payable amount of the service benefit of
the deceased Nagesh to the defendant no.1/respondent
no.1 till the decision of the suit, thereby indicating that it
wp 385320.21. 2/3 4
was permissible for defendant no.1 to withdraw 50% of the
gratuity and other amounts payable on account of the
service benefits of the deceased Nagesh.
2. Mr. Chitale, learned Counsel for the petitioner/
original plaintiff submits, that since the relationship of
defendant no.1 with the deceased Nagesh was not proved,
it was impermissible for the learned appellate Court to have
permitted withdrawal of 50% of the gratuity and other
service benefits of the deceased Nagesh to defendant no.1
till the decision of the suit. He submits that till the such
time the suit is decided, it would be appropriate that the
entire amount to be deposited in a interest carrying account
which then can be disbursed as per the final result in the
suit.
3. A categorical finding on a prima facie basis has
been rendered that the defendant no. 1, is the nominee of
the deceased Nagesh, and therefore, is entitled to claim
50% of the service benefits. The question regarding the
marital status, of the defendant no. 1, would be decided,
during the course of the trial, however, since the record
indicates, that she is the nominee, and has been nominated
by the deceased Nagesh to have the benefits of his
employment in case he is no more, that is one position,
which has rightly been considered by the appellate Court
while passing the impugned order. It is not a case as if the
entire service benefits of the deceased Nagesh, have been
granted to the defendant/respondent no.1 and what has
been granted would be 50% of the amount of gratuity and
wp 385320.21. 3/3 4
other benefits. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in
the impugned judgment.
4. At this stage, Mr Dhore, learned Counsel for
the defendant/respondent no.1 categorically admits, that
the relation between the deceased Nagesh, the son of the
petitioner/plaintiff, of they being the parents of deceased
Nagesh is not disputed by respondent no.1, which
undisputed position would indicate that the
petitioner/plaintiff would be entitled to the balance 50% of
the gratuity and other benefits payable on account of the
service benefits of the deceased Nagesh.
5. This being the position, I do not see any reason
to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the
learned appellate Court. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No
costs.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
