The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.S. Lakshmisha & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4765 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18331/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18331/1999)
Petitioner: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: M.S. Lakshmisha & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4765 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18331/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18331/1999)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 25, 2000
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sections 170, 171 – Appeal by insurer – High Court directing withdrawal of 50% of amount deposited at admission stage – No guarantee taken. Held that High Court was not justified in allowing withdrawal unconditionally. Withdrawal allowed on bank guarantee. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondents have been served but have not chosen to put in an appearance.
2. The order under challenge permitted the respondents to with-draw 50% of the amount that the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited in the High Court at the admission stage. The notice that was issued upon the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order permitting withdrawal of 50% of the amount deposited only if the respondents furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the High Court for the amount thereof or furnish security to that extent to the satisfaction of the Registrar. At the stage when notice was issued, an ad interim order in these terms was passed.
3. Since the appeal is pending, we think that the High Court was not justified in permitting the respondents to withdraw 50% of the amount that has been deposited by the appellant uncondition-ally. We think that the order indicated in the notice is the appropriate order to pass.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The respondents shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited only if they furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the High Court for the amount thereof or furnish security to that extent to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
5. No order as to costs.
1. The respondents have been served but have not chosen to put in an appearance.
2. The order under challenge permitted the respondents to with-draw 50% of the amount that the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited in the High Court at the admission stage. The notice that was issued upon the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order permitting withdrawal of 50% of the amount deposited only if the respondents furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the High Court for the amount thereof or furnish security to that extent to the satisfaction of the Registrar. At the stage when notice was issued, an ad interim order in these terms was passed.
3. Since the appeal is pending, we think that the High Court was not justified in permitting the respondents to withdraw 50% of the amount that has been deposited by the appellant uncondition-ally. We think that the order indicated in the notice is the appropriate order to pass.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The respondents shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited only if they furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the High Court for the amount thereof or furnish security to that extent to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
5. No order as to costs.
