ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ayiti Navaneetha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1892

ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ayiti Navaneetha – Respondent

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.

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 writte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1892

ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIAICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusAyiti Navaneetha – Respondent

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ayiti Navaneetha – Respondent