National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bharat Bhushan & Anr
- SCC(2008) 11 SCC 112
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellate order dismissing an appeal without a speaking and reasoned opinion—that is, without articulating findings on the merits or legal basis for disposal—constitutes an error that warrants remand to that court for fresh determination accompanied by reasons, rather than affirmance on the substantive outcome. Human
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This is an appeal from an order dated 7th of December, 2005 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.2964 of 2005.
The following order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court:
"Supplementary affidavit filed today may be taken on record. Heard Sri V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal laches merit, therefore dismissed summarily. The statutory deposit made before this court be remitted to the Tribunal within 3 weeks."
After going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the High
Court had disposed of the appeal without applying its mind and without passing a
speaking and reasoned order. That being the position, only on this ground the
matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
It is expected that this time, the High Court shall decide the same by passing a
speaking and a reasoned order.
contd...2/-
::2::
We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the
money has already been paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company. If any
application is filed by the appellant before the High Court for refund of that money,
the same shall be decided at the earliest. It would be open for the respondent to
contest the same.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated above without order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
.....................J. (TARUN CHATTERJEE)
.....................J. (AFTAB ALAM)
NEW DELHI, July 8, 2008.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free