Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S.P.Mehra v. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corpn. & Another - WRIT - C No. 17259 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 11980 (21 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.3

        Civil Misc. 2nd Recall Application No. 90725 of 2006


                Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 17259 of 2001

S.P.Mehra                                   .......                       Petitioner/Applicant


Zonal Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

North Central Zone,

M.G.Marg, Kanpur and another   .......                      Respondents.

       : Present :

(Hon.Mr.Justice Amitava Lala & Hon. Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra )

       : Appearance :

For the Petitioner/Appliant              .......             Sri Ranjit Saxena

For the Respondents                         .......             Sri Prakash Padia

Hon. Amitava Lala,J.-  The application which has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is virtually a review application.  Therefore, subject to his undertaking to deposit the court fee as regards review application in the department the matter is proceeded with.  The court fee will be deposited within a period of 48 hours of the day.  However, upon going through the review application we do not find any merit to pass any favourable order.  The contention of the petitioner is that the property in question is not under the L.I.C. to show that the Estate Officer appointed by them will hear out the same.  It is beyond his power of authority.  The proceeding was pending before such authority for some time.  We thought at the time of passing order on 3rd March, 2006 that two simultaneous proceedings cannot go on, therefore, if any point to the question of jurisdiction, which can only arise is to be taken by such officer.  Now it appears to this court in compliance of the order dated 3rd March, 2006 the Estate Officer has already concluded the proceeding and passed order.  The applicant is in apprehension on the question of jurisdiction because of the reason that according to him L.I.C. is not the owner and now the land has been allotted to the writ petitioner by the State.  We do not find any such controversial point to be decided, but the remedy is yet open to the writ petitioner/applicant to make an appeal from the order before the appropriate authority/court and raise the issue.  We do not find any reason but to dismiss the application on the basis of the aforesaid observation.

Thus, the application stands dismissed.  

No order is passed as to costs.

Petitioner will be entitled to get certified copy of this order subject to the payment of court fee as directed by the court.

( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree.

(Justice Sanjay Misra )

Dt. 21.7.06



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.