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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 345

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
K. RAVICHANDRA BAABU, J.

R. Karthigaiselvam
Versus
The Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority, New Delhi & Another
W.P(MD)No.3964 of 2010
Decided On : 11-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, G.R. Swaminathan, R2, E. Veda Bagath Singh, Advocates.

A writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus is not maintainable if the prayer has already been rejected by the respondent and the petitioner has not challenged the rejection.

Headnote:

WRIT OF MANDAMUS - Death Claim Settlement - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to take necessary action against the company for non-settlement of death claim, as the prayer had already been rejected by the respondent and the petitioner had not challenged the rejection.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to take action against a company for non-settlement of a death claim. The respondent had already rejected the prayer, and the petitioner had not challenged the rejection.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not maintainable as the prayer had already been rejected by the respondent and the petitioner had not challenged the rejection.

Issues: The maintainability of the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for non-settlement of death claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the prayer had already been rejected by the respondent and the petitioner had not challenged the rejection.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Judgment :

1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:-

“In the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or writs in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 1st respondent to take necessary action against the 2nd respondent company for non settlement of death claim of my brother, namely Saravanakumar, vide the representation, dated 13.02.2010 and pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and in which, it is specifically stated that the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition was already rejected by the second respondent, through the proceedings, dated 24.11.2009 and without challenging the same, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

3. The petitioner has also referred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition about the order passed by the second respondent. If that be the admitted position, I am unable to understand as to how the present writ petition seeking for the relief of mandamus is maintainable.

4. Therefore, by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order of the second respondent, dated 24.11.2009, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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