Delhi High Court
Vinod Mehta vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 19 March, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:19th March, 2013
+ CM(M) 306/2013
VINOD MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohit Ramdeo, Advocate.
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No. 4761/2013 (for early hearing)
1. The above noted petition came up for hearing before this Court on
15.03.2013. Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the
same was listed for 11.04.2013.
2. Vide the instant application, the petitioner is seeking early hearing of
the present petition.
3. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.
4. Consequently, the date fixed i.e.11.04.2013 stands cancelled.
5. The application stands disposed of.
+ CM(M) 306/2013
1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner is seeking relief as under:
A. Accept the present petition, call for records of suit bearing
no. 728/2003 styled as Smt. Gurmeet Kaur v. Mahender
Ram and Execution No. 15/09 styled as Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Mahender Ram Sewak & Anr. and set aside
order dated 08.02.2013 passed by Sh. S.C. Malik, ld.
Judge-MACT.
B. Stay proceedings in the execution petition bearing no.
15/09 styled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahender
Ram Sewak & Anr.
C. Stay the warrants of attachment / recovery certificate
issued by the Court of ld. MACT Judge Shri S.C. Malik,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the interest of justice.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
petitioner never served with the summons, therefore, had no opportunity to
file his defence and contest the case on merits which resulted in passing of
ex-parte judgment against the petitioner.
3. He further submitted that respondent had fraudulently and with
concealment of the material and important facts concerning letters and
certificate (Annexure C-E) has obtained recovery rights against the
petitioner and driver.
4. On the basis of recovery rights granted by MACT courts, respondent
has filed execution petition bearing no.15/09 and the same is pending
disposal before the ld. Tribunal and is listed for 08.04.2013.
5. I note, ld. Tribunal has passed a compensation award in favour of the
claimant vide its order dated 01.06.2007 by proceeding the petitioner ex-
parte.
6. As stated in the petition, petitioner came to know for the first time qua
passing of judgment dated 01.06.2007 in November, 2012 when the police
visited his office in his absence and informed his staff that judgment has
been passed against him and recovery certificate has been issued in
Execution Petition concerning the same.
7. Upon application U/o 9 Rule 13 CPC being moved by the petitioner,
ld. Tribunal has passed its order dated 08.02.2013 in Suit No. 728/2003 in a
case titled as Smt. Gurmeet Kaur v. Mahender Ram, which is reproduced as
under:
"Counsel for the decree holder seeks time for replying the
application.
Be listed for 08.04.2013 for reply.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant / JD has prayed for granting him
stay against the recovery certificate already issued in execution
petition.
The request is declined.
At the request of ld. Counsel for JD it is however clarified that in
the event of realisation of decreetal amount the same shall not be
disbursed to the Insurance Company and the same shall be put in
the bank so that the party should not suffer."
Be that as it may, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
08.02.2013 passed in Execution Petition no.15/09 in case titled as Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahender Ram Sewak, which is reproduced as under:
"Despite recovery certificate issued nothing has been heard from
the SDM/Collector/Deputy Commissioner concerned.
Issue a reminder to the SDM/Collector/Deputy Commissioner
concerned showing cause why the amount of the recovery
certificate have not been deposited by him till date. On the next
date of hearing the concerned SDM/Collector/Deputy
Commissioner shall attend the court in person on 08.04.2013."
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date recovery certificate has
not been executed. However, after some arguments, he has offered to
deposit Rs.10 Lac without prejudice to his rights and contentions against the
recovery rights.
9. In view of the above, order dated 08.02.2013 passed in Execution
Petition No. 15/09 as noted above shall remain stayed, subject to deposit of
Rs.10 Lac by the petitioner within two weeks from today before the ld.
Tribunal. Ld. Tribunal is further directed to keep the said amount in FDR
initially for a period of six months to be renewed periodically, if required.
Same shall not be disbursed till the disposal of the application U/o 9 Rule 13
CPC filed by the petitioner in Suit No. 728/2003.
10. I here make it clear that if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the
order passed by the ld. Tribunal in the aforesaid application, the amount
deposited by him shall not be disbursed in favour of the Decree Holder
without lapsing the time to challenge the said order as per law.
11. In view of the above, instant petition stands disposed of.
CM No. 4435/2013 (for stay)
1. With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has
become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.
2. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 19, 2013/sb/jg
