India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.  INSC
497 (8 July 2010)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.312
OF 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant M/s. Protection
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as `the 1986 Act',
from an order dated 24th October, 2005, passed by the 2 National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the
"National Commission", in O.P. No.60 of 2003. By the said order, the
National Commission accepted the claim of the Respondent herein, M/s.
Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., in respect of insurance claim on account of
a fire which had broken out in its factory at about 8.45 a.m. on 29th March,
2000, and directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,26,36,179/- to
the Respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from three
months after the date of the fire. In other words, the interest was to be
reckoned from 1st July, 2000, till date.
Although, the scope of the appeal is to some extent limited, a few
facts may be stated for proper appreciation of the case made out by the Respondent/complainant.
On 29th March, 2000, at about 8.45 a.m., there was a devastating
fire in the factory of the Respondent/complainant. The same was noticed by the
factory workers who had assembled in front of the factory premises and were
waiting for the factory to open. On being informed, the fire brigade reached
the site at about 9.10 a.m. and began their operations immediately. However,
the fire was so severe that it continued to flicker for the next three to four
days and was completely extinguished only on 4th April, 2000. As the factory
premises of the Respondent was covered by Fire Insurance Policy for the period
from 19th February, 2000, to 18th February, 2001, against the risk of fire, the
Respondent made its claim to the Insurance Company amounting to
Rs.2,85,50,000/- on account of damage and loss suffered to the building, plant
and machinery, stocks and stock-in- 4 process and the transformer for which the
Respondent Company had paid Rs.1,16,636/- as premium. It appears that while the
Policy was in force, the insurance coverage was enhanced.
On the very same day when the fire broke out, the Insurance
Company appointed Mr. A.S. Asthana, Surveyor, to conduct a preliminary spot
March, 2000, Mr. Asthana and the representatives of the Insurance Company took
joint stock of burnt motors and air coolers which were being manufactured by
Asthana submitted his preliminary report on 3rd April, 2000, but did not
specify the cause of fire.
on 9th April, 2000, one Mr. Bhaskar Joshi was appointed as Joint Surveyor to
conduct a final survey along with Mr. Asthana. On 13th April, 2000, a status
report was submitted by Mr. Bhaskar Joshi. The Joint Surveyors prepared a draft
5 assessment report and estimated the loss suffered by the
Respondent/complainant to be Rs.2,37,09,372.12 paise. The joint assessment
report which was submitted on 28th August, 2000, clearly stated that the exact
cause of fire was not known, though it could be due to a short circuit.
Thereafter, on 30th October, 2000, the Regional Manager of the
Insurance Company appointed M/s. J. Basheer & Associates as investigator to
conduct an investigation into the cause of fire and to assess the loss. As many
as six independent investigation reports were filed by M/s. J. Basheer &
Associates on 28th May, 2001, 3rd July, 2001, 27th August, 2002, 4th October,
2002, 7th November, 2002 and 10th December, 2002. According to M/s. J. Basheer
& Associates, the net amount of loss suffered by the Respondent Company on
account of the fire would be Rs.1,10,57,034/-, which tallies almost exactly
with 6 the assessment made by the Insurance Company amounting to
Rs.1,10,67,230/-. Interestingly, although in the report submitted by M/s. J.
Basheer & Associates it has been mentioned in clause 6 that their
appointment was for investigation into (i) cause of fire and (ii) assessment of
loss, there is nothing definite in the 67 page report as to the cause of fire,
except for a reference to the reply sent by the Fire Officer, Cuttack, to the
Khurda Branch Manager of the Insurance Company on 5th May, 2001, stating that
the estimate of fire amount was about Rs.15 lakhs and the cause of fire was
"short circuit" in the raw material section.
On 25th June, 2001, the Appellant Insurance Company requested Mr.
Bhaskar Joshi to make his observations on the report submitted by M/s. J. Basheer
& Associates on 28th May, 2001. In his comments submitted on 10th August,
2001, Mr. Bhaskar 7 Joshi severely criticized the report filed by M/s. J.
Basheer & Associates and even went to the extent of observing that they had
failed to measure upto the faith and responsibility reposed on them by the
insurers. The report seemed to suggest that the same had been tailor-made in
order to fit the loss assessed by the Insurance Company at Rs.1,10,67,230/-,
which uncannily tallied with the estimate of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates,
After receipt of the views expressed by the Joint Surveyors, the
Appellant Insurance Company decided to obtain the views of Justice Y.V. Chandrachud,
former Chief Justice of India, on the question as to the cause of fire. In his
report, Chief Justice Chandrachud arrived at the conclusion that the report of
M/s. J. Basheer & Associates was unfounded and speculative while that of
the Joint 8 Surveyors contained a careful analysis of the events. Chief Justice
Chandrachud was of the view that he had no doubt that the fire was accidental
and could not by any reasonable norm or standard be characterized as an act of
Mr. Bhaskar Joshi also commented on the report submitted by M/s.
J. Basheer & Associates on 3rd July, 2001, and 29th November, 2001, and
castigated the same in no uncertain terms. Mr. Joshi observed that M/s. J.
Basheer & Associates had not gone into the roots of documentation and had
not even bothered to verify the original documents. On the other hand, they had
gone around creating confusion and controversies and to create an air of
suspicion, which was a classic example of table-top investigation.
Thereafter, as the claim of the Respondent Company was not being
settled by the Appellant 9 Insurance Company, a complaint was filed by the
Respondent Company with the National Commission on 13th February, 2003, for a direction
to the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.2,48,94,000/- for the loss
suffered by it, together with interest @18% p.a. and to also grant compensation
of Rs.10 lakhs for the delay in settlement of the claim, which had caused
mental agony and harassment to the Respondent/Complainant.
The claim of the Respondent-Company was repudiated by the
Appellant Insurance Company on 20th February, 2003, when the National
Commission admitted the complaint filed by the Respondent- Company and directed
notice to issue to the Insurance Company limited to the question of deficiency
of service. After considering the reply filed by the Insurance Company and
after examining one Mr. Amit Biswas, the representative of the 10 Insurance
Company, and Mr. J. Basheer of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates, who admitted
that he had not visited the Excise Office, the Vendors and had also not
provided any supporting evidence to bolster his findings, the National
Commission, by its order dated 24th October, 2005, directed the Appellant
Insurance Company to pay to the Respondent Company a sum of Rs.2,26,36,179 with
interest @12% p.a.
effect from 1st July, 2000 and to also pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of
compensation. The Insurance Company was given liberty to recover the said
amount from its defaulting officers.
it may be indicated that in the final assessment report of the Joint Surveyors
the loss suffered by the Respondent Company was assessed at Rs.2,26,36,180.23
Aggrieved by the said Award of the National Commission, the
Appellant Insurance Company has 11 filed this appeal and questioned the said
Award on several grounds.
Appearing for the Insurance Company, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned
Senior Advocate, submitted that the National Commission had erroneously
approached the problem by concentrating only on the reports submitted by the
Joint Assessors and the opinion given by former Chief Justice of India, Y.V.
Chandrachud, while rejecting the several reports submitted by M/s. J. Basheer
submitted that the specific issues and the allegations made in respect thereof
were not seriously considered by the National Commission.
Mr. Gupta submitted that the National Commission had not considered
the evidence in its totality. Out of the six reports submitted by M/s. J.
Basheer & Associates only two were taken into consideration, while the
other four, including the 12 Final Report submitted on 10th December, 2002,
were ignored and were wrongly rejected. The National Commission relied only on
the Joint Report submitted by the M/s. Asthana and Joshi and the views
expressed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, which was only an opinion and hence not
admissible in evidence. Mr. Gupta urged that the only certificate available as
to the cause of the fire was the Fire Certificate issued by the Fire Officer,
Orissa, Cuttack, on 17th May, 2000, indicating that the fire was the result of
an electrical short circuit, but except for a bald statement, no evidence was
produced to corroborate such opinion.
Mr. Gupta also referred to paragraph 6 of the Final Assessment
Report on the basis of the joint survey conducted by M/s. A. Asthana & Co.
and Bhaskar Joshi, which deals with the cause of the 13 fire. It was pointed
out that the very first sentence of paragraph 6 indicates that the exact cause
of the fire was not known, but the police had attributed it to short circuit.
Sub-paragraph 2 records the fact that nothing specific as to the cause of the
fire could be found even on further probe and hence it had to be presumed that
short circuit could be one of the probable causes out of other probables. It
was also indicated that in the light of the reports issued by the local
authorities, such as the police and the fire brigade, the cause of the fire
could only be attributed to a short-circuit, since no evidence could be found
that would point towards a deliberate act of arson. The final opinion expressed
in Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 6 was that the fire appeared to be accidental
and the loss would be indemnifiable under the Fire Policy issued to and held by
Mr. Gupta also referred to the opinion of Chief Justice, Y.V.
Chandrachud, wherein His Lordship indicated that on a perusal of the Survey Report
and the Investigation Report it was quite clear that the Report of J. Basheer
& Associates was unfounded and speculative, whereas the Report of the Joint
Surveyors contained a careful analysis and assessment of the cause of fire and
the facts incidental to and attendant upon the event of fire.
Mr. Gupta reiterated his earlier submission that except the Fire
Certificate issued by the Fire Officer, Orissa, Cuttack, there were no other
reports as to the cause of the fire and the views expressed by the Joint
Surveyors and also Chief Justice Chandrachud were without foundation and were
themselves speculative and conjectural and could not, there, be relied on. If,
however, all the reports submitted by J. Basheer & Associates 15 were taken
together, it would point towards an act of arson as to the cause of the fire.
Mr. Gupta then referred to the decision of the National Commission
on the question of cause of the fire. It was pointed out that the National
Commission in considering the report of J. Basheer & Associates and the
opinion of Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and the views expressed by Bhaskar
Joshi which had been accepted by the Insurance Company, observed as follows :
this report is accepted by the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company had stated that the Insurance Company accepted that the
fire was accidental and could not be characterized as an act of arson."
Mr. Gupta submitted that the said observation was made on the
basis of a concession which had been made by Counsel for the Insurance Company
and not on the pleadings, wherein it had been 16 consistently stated that the
cause of the fire had not been finally determined by any of the Assessors or
Investigators and that the opinion of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates, that an
act of arson was the cause of fire, could not be ruled out. Mr. Gupta
reiterated that even in the Joint Survey Report of M/s. Asthana and Joshi it
had been mentioned that the exact cause of fire is not known but that the police
had attributed it to a short circuit. But it had also been indicated that the
same was only a probable hypothesis. Mr. Gupta submitted that it is on such
improved probability that an opinion was given that the fire appeared to be
accidental and the loss would be indemnifiable under the fire policy issued to
and held by the insured. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the circumstances when the
cause of fire had not been established with any certainty, the direction given
by the Commission to make payment of insurance on the Fire Policy, was 17 not
Mr. Gupta urged that this was a fit case for remand to enable the
National Commission to ascertain the cause of the fire before making any Award
for payment of insurance under the aforesaid policy. In support of his
submissions, Mr. Gupta firstly referred to the decision of this Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harjeet Rice Mills [(2005) 6 SCC 45], wherein
it was held that since the High Court had failed to consider the allegations of
the Insurance Company, that the claim of the complainant was fraudulent, though
there was adequate prima facie material available to warrant a proper inquiry,
the matter was required to be remanded for a decision afresh for adjudication
on such submissions made on the behalf of the Insurance Company. Learned
Counsel also referred to the decision of this Court in United 18 India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. [(2000)
10 SCC 19], where in a somewhat similar situation as existing in the instant
case, the matter was remanded to the Commission for a fresh hearing.
Mr. Gupta submitted that the National Commission had wrongly
relied on the opinion of Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of
India, in contravention of the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
counsel urged that if the Commission wanted to rely on the opinion given by
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, as if it were an expert opinion, it could only have
done so after examining His Lordship in order to satisfy the provisions of
Section 45 of the aforesaid Act. In support of his said submissions Mr. Gupta
relied on the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency 19
Hospital Ltd. & Ors. [2009) 9 SCC 709, wherein, while considering the
evidence of experts in the light of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, it was held
that such evidence is only advisory in character since such expert is not a
witness of fact.
Mr. Gupta urged that in view of the inconclusive nature of the
reports as submitted, the matter was required to be sent back on remand to the
National Commission for a fresh determination in accordance with law.
Mr. Piyush Gupta, who appeared in-person on behalf of the
Respondent-Company, submitted that the allegations made about inclusion of the
damage in respect of the products manufactured at the manufacturing unit at
SCR-14, Suryanagar, Bhubaneswar, was misleading, since after the establishment
of the new factory premises at 20 Bhatkuri, the Suryanagar Factory ceased to
was made to the Central Excise Authorities to cancel the licence for production
of air coolers at Suryanagar with effect from 1st July, 1999 and all
manufacturing operations were being carried on by the insured at its new
location at Bhatkuri which was affected by the fire.
Mr. Piyush Gupta submitted that the Company maintained
computerized financial accounts which combined financial accounting as well as
inventory management in one software. Learned counsel submitted that in making
their report the Joint Surveyors, M/s. Asthana and Joshi, had relied on the
same after carrying out a detailed check of the system to ascertain its
integrity. A substantial quantity of raw materials which had been damaged
during the super cyclone in October, 1999, had been found to be subtracted from
the other material 21 which had been damaged on account of the fire.
counsel pointed out that in their report, M/s. Asthana and Joshi had in
paragraph 8.03.1.14 indicated that they had verified the integrity of the
system by making dummy entries and the results were found to be reliable. In
order to further cross-check the account, ledger entries of the Company's
accounts in the vendor's books were also called for and the same when
reconciled with the Company's system produced corroborative results.
Piyush Gupta submitted that based on their examination of the stock and the
entries in the computer which were reconciled with the accounts of the
suppliers (vendors), they submitted a draft assessment report assessing the
loss incurred by the Company on account of the fire amounting to
Rs.2,37,09,372.12/-. However, upon visiting the Regional Office of the
Appellant-Insurance Company for discussions, they were given the version of the
22 assessment made by the Insurance Company amounting to Rs.1,10,67,230/-. As
against this, the loss assessed by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates was almost
identical, namely, Rs.1,10,67,034/-. Mr. Gupta urged that it was obvious that
the assessment made by the investigators was based on the Insurance Company's
assessment of the loss suffered by the Company on account of the fire.
Mr. Piyush Gupta then submitted that Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, which provides for licensing of Surveyors and Loss
Assessors, would be attracted to the facts of this case and instead of
appointing another surveyor, as was done in the instant case by the appointment
of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates, the Insurance Company ought to have gone
to the Regulatory Authority under the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority Act, 1999, and under Sub-Section (3) it was for the said 23 Authority
to call for an independent report from any other Approved Surveyor or Loss
Assessor specified by it. Mr. Gupta urged that by appointing another
surveyor/assessor/investigator after M/s. Asthana and Joshi had submitted their
report, the Insurance Company had presented two different reports as to the
loss caused and had also introduced a third opinion as to the cause of the fire
from a former Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, although, an
attempt was made to play down the same since it went completely against the
case of the Insurance Company. It was pointed out that Chief Justice
Chandrachud had observed that the report submitted by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates
was unfounded and was in any way of speaking, speculative, while the Joint
Surveyors' report contained a careful analysis of the event.
further pointed out that Chief Justice Chandrachud came to the conclusion that
he had no 24 doubt that the fire was accidental and could not by any reasonable
norm or standard be characterized as an act of arson.
On the merits of the report submitted by M/s. J. Basheer &
Associates, Mr. Piyush Gupta submitted that one Mr. J. Basheer had been deputed
by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates to visit the factory premises of the
Respondent-Company, which had been damaged by the fire, only on 14th November,
2000, i.e., 8 months after the fire had occurred and by that time
rehabilitation work had already been commenced after obtaining due permission
from the Appellant- Insurance Company. Even then, Mr. Basheer was in the
factory for barely half an hour and did not visit the factory ever again.
On the point of non-consideration of the last 3 reports filed by M/s.
J. Basheer & Associates, learned counsel submitted that the same was
nothing 25 but a repetition of what had been mentioned in the earlier reports
and did not reflect anything new which deserved separate consideration.
On the quantum of damages, Mr. Piyush Gupta referred to the
assessment made by the Commission on a comparison of the reports submitted by
M/s. Asthana and Joshi and M/s. J. Basheer & Associates.
submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Commission holding that the
report submitted by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates was totally unreliable and
tailor-made with regard to the loss suffered by the Respondent-Company on the
basis of the suggestions made by its Regional Office at Orissa and its
agreement with the observations made by the Joint Surveyors to the effect that
the whole exercise of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates was beyond their
competence, cannot be called into question and the ultimate Award directing the
Appellant- 26 Assurance Company to pay Rs.2,26,36,179/- with interest @12% per
annum from 3 months after the date of occurrence of the fire, i.e., from 1st
July, 2000 till payment, was fully justified and the further direction to the
Insurance Company to pay a further sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Respondent-Company
by way of compensation for unjustly repudiating the claim of the
Respondent-company did not also call for any interference.
A further submission was made by Mr. Gupta claiming payment of
interest from the date of the fire and not from the date of the final decision
of the Commission as the delay was on account of the Insurance Company, whose
repudiation of the claim of the Respondent-Company was found to be unjust.
regard reference was made to the decision of this Court in Sovintorg (India)
Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi [(1999) 6 SCC 406], 27 wherein Section
14 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, fell for consideration and it
was observed that where no contract existed between the parties regarding
payment of interest on delayed deposit or service, interest could not be
claimed under Section 34 C.P.C. as the provisions of the C.P.C. have not been
made applicable to proceedings under the 1986 Act. However, the general provisions
of Section 34 of the Code being based on justice, equity and good conscience,
would authorize the consumer courts to grant interest according to the
circumstances of each case. It was submitted that in the said case the
direction to pay interest @12% given by the State Commission was enhanced by
the National Commission to 15% per annum. Reference was also made to the
decision of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh
[(2004) 5 SCC 65], where somewhat similar views were expressed in the context
of Section 73 of the 28 Contract Act, 1872, and it was observed that the award
of compensation had to be made under different and separate set of
circumstances and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each
case and no hard and fast rule, could, therefore, be laid down.
Mr. Gupta submitted that no interference was called for with the
impugned Award of the National Commission and the appeal was liable to be
The nature of the controversy between the parties has made us
dwell on the facts of the case at some length. Despite the extensive
submissions made on behalf of the parties, the issues to be resolved in this
Appeal are confined to two questions, namely, 29 (i) What was the cause of fire
which broke out in the factory premises of the assured at Bhatkuri at about
8.45 a.m. on 29th March, 2000? (ii) What was the extent of loss and damage
suffered by the assured on account of such fire?
As far as the answer to the first question is concerned, the
report of the Joint Surveyors, M/s. Asthana & Joshi, dated 28th August,
2000, indicates that the exact cause of the fire was not known, though it could
be due to a short circuit.
while referring in its report dated 28th May, 2001, to the reply given by the
Fire Officer, Cuttack, to the Khurda Branch Manager of the Insurance Company on
5th May, 2001, stating that the cause of fire was a "short circuit"
in the raw material section of the factory premises, M/s. J.
Basheer & Associates ultimately observed that the fire could reasonably be
attributed to an act of "Arson" by vested interests, for some
pecuniary benefit, without any factual basis for the same.
from the aforesaid observation made at the end of the report, no foundation has
been laid down in the report for such an observation which literally appears
out of the blues.
Even if the views expressed by the Joint Surveyors, M/s. Asthana
and Joshi, on the reports submitted by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates are
discounted, although they were appointed by the Insurance Company itself, one
cannot ignore the views obtained by the Insurance Company from former Chief
Justice, Y.V. Chandrachud, although, an attempt has been made on behalf of the
Insurance Company to exclude the said views from consideration or at least to
water down the same by 31 taking refuge in Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
stand has no legs to stand upon, since the opinion given by Justice Chandrachud
was based on an analysis of the materials placed before him by the Insurance
Company, including the reports submitted by the Joint Surveyors, M/s. Asthana
and Joshi and M/s. J. Basheer & Associates. Section 45 of the Evidence Act
empowers the Court, in order to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or
of science or of art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions,
to rely upon the opinions of persons specially skilled in such matters. The
case in hand is quite different, as the views expressed by Justice Chandrachud
were not meant to be an opinion within the meaning of Section 45 of the
Evidence Act, but an analysis of the reports and the materials provided to His
Lordship by the Insurance Company. In fact, the attempt made on behalf of the
Appellant Insurance Company to 32 exclude the views expressed by Justice
Chandrachud with regard to the cause of fire from the area of consideration
does not commend itself to us as the same is a completely independent and
unbiased assessment of the events relating to the cause of fire on the basis of
the materials made available to His Lordship.
Without any material to support the theory of arson projected by
M/s. J. Basheer & Associates and sufficient material to hold otherwise, it
would be entirely unjust and inequitable to accept such a theory without any evidence
whatsoever in support thereof. Reference can be made in this context to the
submission made by the counsel for the Insurance Company before the National
Commission and quoted in para 17 above. Accordingly, we endorse the views
expressed by the National Commission that the cause of fire was accidental 33
and that the attempt made by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates to show that the
fire had been caused by an act of arson, was motivated and intended to benefit
the Appellant Insurance Company. The decisions cited by the parties were
rendered in their own particular fact situations in accordance with law which
is not disputed. The fact situations are, however, distinguishable.
This brings us to the second question regarding the quantum of
loss suffered by the Respondent Company on account of the fire. As has been
commented upon by the Joint Surveyors and Chief Justice Chandrachud and
subsequently by the National Commission, the almost identical amounts, barring
a few rupees, arrived at by the Insurance Company and M/s. J. Basheer &
Associates speak volumes of the exercise carried out by the latter on a wholly
cursory investigation which has quite 34 aptly been described as
"tailor-made". The amount of loss suffered by the Respondent Company
on account of the fire has been calculated by the Joint Surveyors on the basis
of the amounts mentioned by the Respondent Company and the computer data
available in support thereof and also upon cross-checking with the accounts of
suppliers and vendors of raw materials to the Respondent Company. We see no
reason to differ with the views expressed by the National Commission in this
regard. We also accept the discretion exercised by the National Commission
regarding the rate of interest awarded from three months after the date of the
Award. The submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Company for enhancement
of the same is rejected as we are of the view that such exercise of discretion
was just and equitable in the absence of any agreement between the parties
regarding payment of interest or the quantum thereof.
The submissions of Mr. Piyush Gupta in regard to Section 64 UM of
Act, 1938, are also of substance, as the Appellant
Insurance Company should have applied to the Regulatory Authority under the Act
for a second opinion instead of appointing M/s. J. Basheer & Associates for
the said purpose unilaterally. The reports submitted by M/s. J. Basheer &
Associates are liable to be discarded on such ground as well.
The Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, fails on all
counts and is dismissed.
will be no order as to costs.
Having regard to the judgment delivered today, no further orders
are required to be passed on the application for directions filed on 30.4.2010
on behalf of the Respondent Company and supported by 36 an affidavit dated
27.4.2010 affirmed by Mr. Piyush Gupta and the same is disposed of accordingly.
________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
Dated: 8th July, 2010.
No.1-A Court No.2 SECTION XVII (for judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D
I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO.312 OF 2006 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO. LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS
PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. Respondent (s)
08/07/2010 This Petition was called on for judgment today.
Appellant (s) Mr. Dinesh Mathur,Adv.
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
Respondent(s) In person Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac
appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment placed on the file. There
will be no order as to costs.