Calcutta High Court
Purti Vanaspati Private Limited vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 23 December, 2024
OCD-13
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/317/2024
[Old No.CS/197/2021]
PURTI VANASPATI PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : December 23, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Suparna Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Khusboo Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Adv.
... for the plaintiff
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Balarko Sen, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv.
... for the defendant
The Court: Mr. Suparna Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, is
appearing for the plaintiff.
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, learned counsel, is appearing for the
defendant.
Both the parties have filed their suggested issues.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the
pleadings and the suggested issues.
The following issues are framed :
-: I S S U E S :-
1.
Is the Suit not maintainable?
2. Has the Suit been filed by the Plaintiff upon suppression of
material facts?
3. Does the Plaintiff lack Cause of Action or does the plaint not
disclose any cause of action as stated in the paragraph no. 2
of the Written Statement?
4. Is the Suit barred under the Principles of Estoppel,
Acquiescence and Waiver?
5. Is the Suit barred under the provisions of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872; The Insurance Act, 1938; and The Insurance
(Regulatory & Development Authority) Act, 1999 as stated in
the paragraph no. 4 of the Written Statement?
6. Was the Defendant entitled to repudiate the claim of the
Plaintiff in view of the clauses 3(a), 6(b) and 8 of the
Insurance Policy as stated in the paragraph no. 28 of the
Written Statement?
7. Was the Plaintiff carrying on which manufacturing of its
products in the factory without compliance of necessary
regulatory procedure as alleged in the Written Statement?
8. Did the Plaintiff fail to cooperate with the Surveyor and/or
provide relevant document to the Surveyor as alleged in the
Written Statement?
9. Has the Plaintiff acted in a fraudulent manner as alleged in
the Written Statement?
10. Is not the Plaintiff entitled to a Decree for Rs. 19,68,86,176/-
as stated in the paragraph no. 30 of the Plaint?
11. Is not the Plaintiff entitled to a Decree for Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
as stated in the paragraph no. 35 of the Plaint?
12. Is not the Plaintiff entitled to claim interest @ 18% per annum
as stated in the paragraphs no. 32 & 33 of the Plaint?
13. To what relief is the Plaintiff entitled?
14. Is the letter of repudiation dated 6th November, 2020 illegal,
wrongful and in breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policies dated 11th August, 2015 bearing Nos.
0304001115P105364312 (Building Policy) and
0304001115P105365632 (Stock Policy) as contended in
paragraph 29 of the plaint?
15. Has the plaintiff suffered loss and damage for the repudiation
of its claims under the insurance policies dated 11th August,
2015 bearing Nos. 0304001115P105364312 (Building Policy)
and 0304001115P105365632 (Stock Policy)?
It is submitted that the parties have already filed Judge’s Brief of
documents.
The plaintiff is directed to file affidavit of evidence by 7th February,
2025 after serving the copy to the learned counsel for the defendant.
Let the matter be fixed on 21st February, 2025 at 3:00 pm for
witness action.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
RS