High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
L.I.C. Branch Hathras Thru' Branch Manager v. Xivth A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - C No. 1522 of 2004  RD-AH 2967 (16 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1522 of 2004
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Branch Hathras, through its Branch Manager
XIVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the respondent no.1 directing the Life Insurance Corporation to execute an indemnity bond of Rs. 3,25,000/- so that in case the applicant wins the case his monetary interest is safeguarded.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, this order does not appear to be justified. In pursuance of the earlier direction of the court passed in the year 1994 the Life Insurance Corporation had already paid the insured amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to one Ram Singh in whose favour the order was passed by the court. Admittedly there was no order granted by any competent court staying the payment to the said Ram Singh. Only on the basis of surmises, the trial court arrived at finding that from the action of the Life Insurance Corporation, ''something' is indicated although not conclusively. It is not specified as to what ''something' is indicated. In view of the fact that payment has already been made by the Life Insurance Corporation in pursuance of the court's order, the direction to the Corporation to execute a fresh indemnity bond for the same amount again does not appear to be justified. In any case, if ultimately the case is decided against the Life Insurance Corporation, it being a government body, the recovery can always be made from it. The passing of the impugned order, merely on the basis of surmises is thus not justified.
This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 30.10.2003 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed. No order as to costs.
However, it may be observed that the application of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, pending before respondent no.1 may be decided at an early date, in accordance with law.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.