Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury
Sarada Choudhury, W/o – Late Mohendra Ch. Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Chairperson – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of petitioners and insurance loan. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claim processing after principal borrower's death. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. tribunal's observations on notice issuance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. compliance with insurance coverage requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. unfair actions regarding insurance claim settlement. (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's final order on claim settlement. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Life Insurance Corporation of India [LICI] for the respondent nos. 1–4; and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, United Commercial Bank [UCO Bank] for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.
2. The petitioners, 5 [five] in nos., have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging unfair treatment meted out by the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent LICI authorities in a matter of making settlement of an insurance claim taken in respect of a housing term loan obtained by the petitioner no. 1 and one Debabrat Choudhury.
3. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother of one Debabrat Choudhury and t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
