9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (2008 (12) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2016 - Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ. JUDGMENT 1. Leave gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of this Court in Union of India vs. G.S. Grewa l [(2014) 7 SCC 303] and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana [(2013) 10 SCC 136] apart from the High Court judgments. The appellant supported the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [3 (2009) 2 SCC 244] apart from other judgments. 5. The High Court upheld the objection of the respondent and allowed the appeal of the respondent company and directed refund of the amount deposited/paid, if any, to the respondent company. It was observed : In the instant case admittedly the accident took place in Hooghly. The claimant, as evident from the cause title, resides at Hoogly. The own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m petition was residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The residence in the case of juristic person included its Principal office. In any case, the view taken by the High Court is directly in conflict with the law laid down by this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) under which the High Court could interfere in such cases only if there was failure of justice. The decisions of this Court in G.S. Grewal and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat have no application to the fact situation at hand. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent company on the other hand, supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that the place of residence within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166(2) of the Act could not mean the place of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signature of the applicant. 11. In Mantoo Sarkar (supra) , the insurance company had a branch at Nainital. Accident took place outside the jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. The claimant remained in the hospital at Bareilly and thereafter shifted to Pilibhit where he was living for a long time. However, at the time of filing of the claim petition he was working as a labourer in Nainital District. The High Court took the view that Nainital Tribunal had no jurisdiction and reversed the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that since the office of the insurance company was at Nainital, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction. This Court reversed the view of the High Court. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was wider tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. 12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) , the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata. 13. Reliance placed on decisions of this Court in G.S. Grewal and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
