← Library
Bombay High CourtCAF/1703/2024allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagpur Through Its Deputy General Manager v. Samida Begum Mohd. Rafik Shaikh And Others

2024-12-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay Anandrao Deshmukh2 pages

1 10caf1703.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION [CAF] NO.1703 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1163 OF 2015 [D] WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO.31 OF 2022 [D] [The New India Assurance Company Limited .vs. Samida Begum Mohd. Rafik Shaikh and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Aditi Mairal, Adv. h/f Mr. A.W. Paunikar, Adv. for appellant. Mr. R.S. Charpe, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4. .........

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 14 th DECEMBER, 2024.

1.

This is an application for necessary directions for withdrawal of the amount.

2.

Perused the application.

3.

Heard the learned advocate for both sides.

4.

Learned advocate for applicant-respondent nos.1 to 4 pointed out the discrepancy in the names particularly the spelling mistakes which are pleaded in para no.4 of the application along with affidavit. He is also submitted the following chart, which is marked as 'X1' for identification. Sr. No. of Party Names appearing in Cause title Name Appearing in Aadhar Card Name Appearing in Bank Mandate Form/Passbook Resp.No.1 Samida Begum Mohd Rafik Sheikh Samida Begam w/o Mohammad Rafique Samida Begum

2 10caf1703.24.odt Resp.No.2 Mohamadi Mohd Rafik Shaikh Mohmadi Abdul c/o Samidabai Abdul Rafik Mohmadi Abdul Resp.No.3 Mohd Altamesh Mohd Rafik Shaikh Mohammad Altamash s/o Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Altamash Resp.No.4 Mohd Tanfik Mohd Rafik Shaikh Mohammad Taufiq s/o Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Taufiq 5.

Considering the fact that these are the spelling mistakes, the Registry is directed to waive all these office objections regarding the discrepancy in the names, as prayed. 6.

Registry is further directed to pay that amount to the respondent nos.1 to 4 accordingly.

7.

The application is, therefore, allowed.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) Gulande