Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20325 (GAU)

ROHIMA KHATUN v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

I.A.(Civil)/3361/2025 · 2025-10-21

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010230252025 2025:GAU-AS:14003 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3361/2025 ROHIMA KHATUN W/O RAJ ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HURKAKUCHI, PS GOALPARA, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM 783101 VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A25-27/ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI , 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI 7, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MANNAF, Advocate for the Respondent : MR SISHIR DUTTA, Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Musahari, learned counsel for the respondent. By an order dated 02.09.2020, while staying the operation of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2019, this Court directed the respondent/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the total awarded amount before the Registry of this Court. In compliance with the said order, the respondent/Insurance Company has deposited an amount of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakhs two thousand only), being 50% of the total awarded amount, before the Registry of this Court. By filing this application, the applicant/claimant prays for the release of the deposited amount of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakhs two thousand only), being 50% of the total awarded amount of Rs. 12,04,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs four thousand only), to the applicant/claimant. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised no objection. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. The Registry is hereby directed to release the deposited amount of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakhs two thousand only) to the applicant/claimant, namely Rohima Khatun, after proper verification and identification by her advocate. With the above observations, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant