Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Sanjesh on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
ITEM NO.17 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
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). 3978/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2021
in WC No. 19071/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SANJESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.32462/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 11-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
Mr. Yashvardhan S. Soam, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The sole arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim was not filed within a period of one month or extending condonable period of one month.
We do not find any merit in the said arguments in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
“28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.03.12 10:29:54 IST Reason: void.— [Every agreement,—
(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal 2 proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]” In view of the aforesaid Section, the condition of lodging claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)