SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
S.K. Roy & Ors. – Respondents
REVIEW PETITION(C) No.3538 of 2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8543 OF 2009
Decided On : 26-10-2016

Advocates:
IMPORTANT POINT
When the High Court did not grant any relief as to interest and the Supreme Court granted the same on adjusting equities of the parties, then the interest would be payable from the date of the order of the Supreme Court.

Headnote:Administration of justice – Judicial review – Adjustment of equities – High Court not granting any relief as to interest – Petitioners not challenging the same – Interest ordered by Supreme Court – Therefore interest would be payable from the date of order of the Supreme Court – Final order dated 10th December, 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009 modified accordingly. (Para 11, 12)

       Facts of the case:

       This limited review petition calls for answering a short but significant question as to from what date, the interest needs to be calculated and paid by the LIC to the petitioners in terms of final order dated 10th December, 2015 in Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009.

       The first petitioner is a non-banking finance company engaged in the business of lending money against collateral security. It accepts life insurance policies as collateral security through assignment of insurance policies by borrower in favour of the petitioners. On 22nd October, 2003 and 2nd March, 2005, LIC issued two circulars for putting restrictions on assignment of insurance policies with a view to prevent “trading” in policies. The circulars were challenged before the Bombay High Court through two writ petitions filed in the year 2004. They were allowed by quashing the two circulars vide judgments and orders dated 22nd March, 2007 and 23rd April, 2007 respectively. No order for grant of any interest was passed by the High Court nor the petitioners appealed against such orders.

       LIC challenged the judgments of Bombay High Court.

       Ultimately Civil Appeal against the petitioners was disposed of on the basis of undertakings furnished on affidavit which were accepted by the Court on account of agreement accorded to the terms of the undertaking by the learned senior counsel for the LIC. The LIC was thus required to process the claim applications or maturity applications as well as fresh applications for registration in accordance with the order dated 10th December, 2015 and in that context, it was observed that LIC will be liable to pay interest at the prevailing bank rate (without penal interest) as per relevant provisions in the regulations of 2002.

       Finding of the Court:

       Final order dated 10th December, 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009 needs modification.

       Result: Matter disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Although this petition is labelled as a contempt petition arising out of Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009, by order dated 26th September, 2016, the contempt proceedings were closed and the petition is now being treated only as a limited review petition for answering a short but significant question as to from what date, the interest needs to be calculated and paid by the LIC to the petitioners in terms of final order dated 10th December, 2015 in Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009. The last but one paragraph of the Order dated 10th December, 2015 is relevant for appreciating the issue relating to interest indicated above. That paragraph runs as follows :

“It is further clarified that in view of the disposal of this Appeal, in the circumstances mentioned above, the Appellant will be liable to pay interest at the prevailing Bank rate (without penal interest) as per Section 8 sub-section (5) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder Interest) Regulations, 2002. The disposal of this Appeal is without prejudice to other Appeals in which arguments have been closed.”

3. It will also be apposite to extract the Order passed in this case on 26th September, 2016 which is as follows :-

“On hearing the parties, we find that the order passed by this Court on 10th December, 2015 in C.A.No.8543 of 2009 has been substantially or may be fully complied with except that a dispute has arisen with regard to interpretation of observations made at the end of that Order relating to payment of interest at the prevailing bank rate. The dispute requires an answer as to the ‘the date’ from which the interest should be calculated.

In our considered opinion, this dispute raises questions of equity between the parties to be adjusted on account of earlier orders passed in C.A.No.8543 of 2009 and the language used in the Order dated 10th December, 2015. It will be appropriate to consider the issue not under Contempt Jurisdiction but in Review Jurisdiction. Therefore, the contempt proceedings are closed.

For that purpose, we direct that this Contempt Petition shall now be treated as limited Review Petition and may be listed in Court on 18th October, 2016 i.e. on a non-misc. day.

It is further recorded that the petitioners may accept whatever amount Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is ready to pay as interest without prejudice to their claims which may be determined by way of Review.

It goes without saying that the petitioners will be entitled to pursue their remedy by approaching LIC with further particulars/materials in respect of the cases which are still pending for settlement.”

4. Since the issue under dispute is very narrow one, it is not necessary to refer to facts in detail. It is sufficient to notice that the first petitioner is a non-banking finance company engaged in the business of lending money against collateral security. It accepts life insurance policies as collateral security through assignment of insurance policies by borrower in favour of the petitioners. On 22nd October, 2003 and 2nd March, 2005, LIC issued two circulars for putting restrictions on assignment of insurance policies with a view to prevent “trading” in policies. The circulars were challenged before the Bombay High Court through two writ petitions filed in the year 2004. They were allowed by quashing the two circulars vide judgments and orders dated 22nd March, 2007 and 23rd April, 2007 respectively. No order for grant of any interest was passed by the High Court nor the petitioners appealed against such orders.

5. LIC challenged the judgments of Bombay High Court by way of S.L.P.(C) Nos.8918 and 10783, both of 2007. This Court passed interim order in favour of LIC and, as a result, the petitioners could get only temporary registration of assignment in its favour but could not file any death claim or maturity claim during the pendency of the Civil Appeal No.8543 of 2009 arising








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top