Supreme Court - Daily Orders
E Meditek Insurance Tpa Ltd. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 6 August, 2018
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Indu Malhotra
1
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9624/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-03-2018
in WP No. 4516/2018 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)
E-MEDITEK INSURANCE TPA LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1258/2018 in SLP(C) No. 9624/2018 (XVI)
Date : 06-08-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
On being asked by
Court: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR
Ms. Anindita Deka, Adv.
Ms. Isha Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bikas r. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2018.08.08 16:56:23 IST Reason: 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9624/2018:
Having heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, we are of the view that continuing a strike even on the ground that the strength of the Court is woefully diminished is contrary to Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 . However, Mr. Uttam Majumdar, Advocate appears before us and offers an unconditional apology. We accept the same.
We may only hasten to add that by accepting the same, we do not condone what has happened, and the Bar must see that it does not recur in the future. Having said this, we are also of the view that the judicial appointments mechanism must seriously take up the appointment of ad-hoc judges whenever such crisis situation occurs, so that ultimately, in the justice delivery process, the litigant does not suffer.
We are informed that a large number of names are in the pipeline for appointment as High Court Judges. We would request the learned Attorney General to please look into this and do the needful as expeditiously as possible.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1258/2018 in SLP(C) No. 9624/2018:
In view of the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition and the same is disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER