Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1892

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8412-8413 of 2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-03-2023 in WP No. 1395/2023 06-03-2023 in WP No. 1396/2023 passed by the High Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad]
Decided On : 04-11-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv. Mr. Aryan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Tenzen Tashi Negi , AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv. Ms. Ragini Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Khatana, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Bhoumik Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Rajan D.b., Adv. Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv. Mr. Anoop George, Adv. Mr. Anshul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanada Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, AOR Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar K P, Adv. Ms. Mariyamma A. K., AOR Ms. Ipsita Ojal, Adv. Mr. Manas P Hameed, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, AOR Mr. Ravi Sehgal, AOR Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mehta, Adv. Mr. Adithya S Nair, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv. Mr. L.r. Khatana, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Ragini Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Prateek Goyal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Manwani, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Prateek Goyal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Manwani, Adv.

The court clarified that claims should not be dismissed on limitation grounds during the pending special leave petitions, emphasizing fair hearing rights for all parties involved in similar claims across the country.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166(3) - Special Leave Petitions related to dismissals for default and unserved respondents - The court found that it has been informed of numerous petitions filed nationwide concerning the same issue, necessitating expedited hearing - During the pendency of these petitions, claim petitions should not be dismissed on limitation grounds as per the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring the rights of parties to pursue their claims are protected. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Special Leave Petitions - Dismissal of petitions for default or lack of procedural steps taken - Court emphasized the importance of allowing hearings on significant matters affecting multiple claims. (Paras 1-6)

Facts of the case:
The Supreme Court dealt with multiple Special Leave Petitions concerning dismissals related to unserved respondents and procedural defaults, acknowledging significant implications for ongoing similar claims across the country.

Findings of Court:
The court expressed the need to expedite hearings and protect claim rights during the pendency of the petitions, clarifying that dismissal on limitation grounds will not be permissible.

Issues: The main issues included procedural deficiencies in the petitions and their impact on ongoing claims related to motor vehicle accidents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wide-ranging implications of findings necessitate expedited hearings and that rights of parties to pursue claims should be safeguarded even amidst procedural defaults.

Result: Special Leave Petitions dismissed as stated.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication that the decision has been overruled. The document reflects a final judgment by the Supreme Court of India, emphasizing that during the pendency of the special leave petitions, claims should not be dismissed on limitation grounds under the Motor Vehicles Act. The order also mentions the dismissal of certain petitions for default or unserved respondents and the withdrawal of others, but there is no mention of this decision being overruled or challenged successfully in subsequent proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Therefore, as of the information provided, the decision remains in effect and has not been overruled.

ORDER

SLP (C) No.2709/2025

1. The special leave petition stands dismissed against unserved respondents for not having taken steps.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SLP (C) No.3822/2025

1. The special leave petition stands dismissed for default.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SLP (C) No.13603/20230

1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

2. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

Rest of the matters

1. Mr. Gautam Jha, learned counsel is nominated as nodal counsel for these batch of matters.

2. This court has been informed that there are a number of petitions across the country filed on the same issue and any finding recorded by this Court would have bearing on the pending petitions. In that view of the matter, the hearing of these matters requires to be expedited.

3. Pleadings shall be completed, if not already completed, within two weeks from today, failure to do so would result in such those parties loosing their right to file pleadings.

4. It is made clear that learned counsel appearing for the parties are at liberty to file written synopsis, not exceeding five pages, within two weeks from today and each of the counsel would be permitted to address the oral arguments not exceeding half-an-hour.

5. It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 166(3) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

6. Re-list these matters on 25.11.2025.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document