Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Amit Kharat & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4496 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Amit Kharat & Ors on 3 September, 2024

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                       1




                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            APPELLATE SIDE


Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
              And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

                           M.A.T. 1222 of 2024

                    Life Insurance Corporation of India
                                    VS.
                            Amit Kharat & Ors.


For the Appellant                      : Mr. Soumya Majumder
                                         Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty
                                         Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee

For the Respondent No. 1               : Mr. Ujjal Ray

Mr. Arpa Chakraborty

Heard on : September 3, 2024

Judgment on : September 3, 2024

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is directed against the interim order dated April 15, 2024 passed in

W.P.A. 7400 of 2024.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge noticed that there are

subsisting interim orders passed by the Coordinate Bench in a number of

writ petitions spanning from 2019 till 2023. In view of subsistence of such

interim orders, learned Single Judge proceeded to grant the same interim

order to the writ petitioner by the impugned order.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there are

orders of different High Courts which did not grant such interim order.

4. The writ petition is yet to be finally decided. There subsists interim orders

passed in a number of writ petitions spanning over a period of 2019 and 2023.

5. Learned Single Judge as a Coordinate Bench in respect of other learned

Single Judges who passed interim orders was bound to follow such interim

order granted.

6. Consequently, learned Single Judge passed the same interim order.

7. We find no infirmity in the exercise of such discretion by the learned

Single Judge warranting an interference in an intra Court appeal.

8. M.A.T. 1222 of 2024 along with connected applications, if there by any, are

disposed of.

9. We clarify that our observations will not prejudice any of the parties to the

writ petition.

( Debangsu Basak, J.)

10. I agree

S.D. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)