Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus KALAWATI DEVI & ORS.

Decided
24 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1049 · 2009 INSC 396
Also cited as
  • (2009) 13 SCC 767 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1050, margin E

2

Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in M.A. No.184 of 2002 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer'). The High Court dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Acr) when the owner of the vehicle did not take interest after filing written statement, the insurer could have obtained leave to contest as required under Section 170 of the Act and establish that the Sheikh Akhtar, who was the driver responsible for the accident in question, had no valid licence. But no such leave to contest was obtained. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed. An application was filed before the High Court contending that the conclusion that the insurer had not obtained leave to contest was ndt factually correct. In fact the leave to contest the claim was granted by the MACT on 25.4.2001. The High Court rejected the application for review primarily on the ground that the scope of review was very limited under Order 4 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') and this was not a case of the nature where action in terms of Order 4 7 Rule 1, CPC could be taken.

pp. 1050–1051, margin F

3

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the High Court at the first instance proceeded on erroneous factual premises, it should have recalled the earlier order and heard the matter afresh.

p. 1051, margin C

4

Respondents supported the orders of the High Court.

p. 1051, margin C

5

Undisputedly the leave to contest the claim was granted to the insurer on 25.4.2001. Those aspects appear to have been overlooked by the High Court when the original order dated 14.11.2003 was passed. That being so, we set aside the impugned orders dated 14.11.2003 in MA No.184 of 2002 and dated 5.7.2006 in Civil Review No.37 of 2004 stand quashed. Since the matter is pending since long we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

p. 1051, margin C

6

The Appeal is allowed. 8.8.B. Appeal allowed.

p. 1051, margin E