Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sushma Agrawal 46 Wp227/887/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                                                     NAFR

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1037 of 2018

             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager,
             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Rama Trade
             Center, In front of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                       ---- Petitioner

                                                  Versus

          1. Smt. Sushma Agrawal, age about 41 years, W/o Late Aseem Agrawal,

          2. Anurag Agrawal, age about 16 years, S/o Late Aseem Agrawal,

          3. Anubhav Agrawal, age about 14 years, S/o Late Aseem Agrawal,

             Respondent No.2 and 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt.

Sushma Agrawal, W/o Late Aseem Agrawal,

4. Smt. Shivkumari Agrawal, age about 70 years, W/o Nandlal Agrawal, All R/o B-75, In front of Water Tank No.1, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimants)

5. Pankaj Kushwaha, S/o Ram Kripal Kushwaha, R/o Village Achholi, Gandhi Chowk, Urla, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner)

6. Neel Kamal Tandon, age about 42 years, S/o Balram Tandon, R/o 137, Bardi, Nagpur (Maharashtra), Present R/o Ward No.9, Village Achholi, Thana Urla, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver)

---- Respondents For Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 04/12/2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim case has already been decided as such, the writ petition has become infructuous, however, the petitioner be granted liberty to raise the grounds that have been raised in this writ petition, if appeal is to be preferred.

2. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous with liberty as prayed for. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma