Writ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
In the Matter under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India;
And
In the matter under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975;
And
In the matter between:
Shri Jayantibhai Maganbhai Parekh
House No. 45,
Amarvihar Shanti Kunj,
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad – 392 021
…Petitioner
(VERSUS)
United India Insurance Company Limited
Through Shri S.P. Nanda (Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority)
And Shri Datta Yardi (Inquiry Authority)
Regd. & Head Office
P.B. No. 676
24 Whites Road
Chennai – 600 014 …Respondent
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
THE HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:
1. The Respondent is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case having dealt with it in its official capacity. The Respondent has read and understood the contents of the writ petition and the reply to it is set as below :
Preliminary Objections:
I. That the Petitioner has evoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without exhausting equally efficacious alternative remedy. As a result, it is pleaded that this petition be quashed in light of the following authorities:
II. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 SC 1006), held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. In addition, in the case of C.A. Abraham v.
REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
In the Matter under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India;
And
In the matter under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975;
And
In the matter between:
Shri Jayantibhai Maganbhai Parekh
House No. 45,
Amarvihar Shanti Kunj,
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad – 392 021
…Petitioner
(VERSUS)
United India Insurance Company Limited
Through Shri S.P. Nanda (Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority)
And Shri Datta Yardi (Inquiry Authority)
Regd. & Head Office
P.B. No. 676
24 Whites Road
Chennai – 600 014 …Respondent
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
THE HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:
1. The Respondent is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case having dealt with it in its official capacity. The Respondent has read and understood the contents of the writ petition and the reply to it is set as below :
Preliminary Objections:
I. That the Petitioner has evoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without exhausting equally efficacious alternative remedy. As a result, it is pleaded that this petition be quashed in light of the following authorities:
II. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 SC 1006), held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. In addition, in the case of C.A. Abraham v.