w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Oriental Kuries Ltd. Represented By Its Chairman P.D. Jose v/s Lissa & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- PD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2011PTC221370

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ORIENTAL COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1935PLC094079

Company & Directors' Information:- ORIENTAL COMPANY LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U70101RJ1935ULL000047

Company & Directors' Information:- ORIENTAL INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51226WB1983PLC036505

Company & Directors' Information:- ORIENTAL KURIES LTD [Active] CIN = U65992KL1933PLC000835

Company & Directors' Information:- N J JOSE AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U55101KL1979PTC003037

Company & Directors' Information:- K C KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65992KL2014PTC036841

Company & Directors' Information:- ORIENTAL CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909GJ1937PTC000133

Company & Directors' Information:- PD KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65992MH2016PTC280253

Company & Directors' Information:- ORIENTAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1937PTC002741

    Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2009

    Decided On, 06 November 2019

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

    For the Appellant: Raghenth Basant, Sajith P. Warrier, R. Chandrachud, Advocates. For the Respondents: M.T. George, Susy Abraham, Johns George, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Romy Chacko, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Indu Malhotra, J.

The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present Civil Appeal is with respect to the jural relationship between a chit fund entity and the subscribers, created by a chitty agreement; and whether it is a debt in prasenti or a promise to discharge a contractual obligation.

2. The present Appeal arises out of a Chit Fund conducted by the Appellant, a chit fund entity. The duration of the chit fund was from 1978 to 1990. The Respondents were subscribers of the chit fund. During the subsistence of the chit fund, the Respondents defaulted in the payment of 12 installments from 24.11.1981 to 24.11.1984.

2.1 The Appellant - chit foreman instituted two Suits against the Respondent - subscribers before the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur, Kerala. The first Suit bearing O.S. No. 323/1984 was filed for recovery of 12 installments for the period 24.11.1981 to 24.11.1984; and, the second Suit bearing O.S. No. 548/1987 was filed for recovery of future subscriptions due under the chit fund after 24.11.1984.

2.2 The Subordinate Judge, Thrissur, Kerala decreed both the Suits in favour of the Appellant - Company on 09.04.1990.

In O.S. No. 323/1984, the Respondents were directed to pay the Appellant - Company a sum of Rs. 40,915/- with Interest @12% on the sum of Rs. 34,800/- from the date of filing the Suit till the date of decree, and thereafter Interest @6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

In O.S. No. 548/1987, the Respondents were directed to pay the Appellant - Company a sum of Rs. 83,820.68/- with Interest @12% on a sum of Rs. 63,800/- from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of decree, and thereafter Interest @6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

2.3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur, the Respondents herein filed two Appeals bearing A.S. No. 326/1992 and A.S. No. 346/1992 before the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the Appeals filed by the Respondents vide a common Judgment and Order dated 27.06.1994.

The Single Judge held that the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 does not apply to the Chit Fund in question, since the same was started from Mangalore, Karnataka. The Appellant being a trading company, was exempted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 from specifying the States to which the objects would extend in the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

Reliance was placed by the Single Judge on the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in P.K. Achuthan and Anr. vs. State Bank of Travancore, Calicut, AIR 1975 Ker 47 wherein it was held that a chit fund is essentially a debt in praesenti, but permitted to be paid in installments. The facility of this debt is available to the debtor so long as the installments are regularly paid. The nature of the transactions under a chit fund are essentially that of a debtor-creditor relationship.

It was noted that the judgment in P.K. Achutan (supra) had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in K.P. Subbarama Sastri and Ors. vs. K.S. Raghavan and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 424

2.4 Aggrieved by the common Judgment and Order dated 27.06.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent filed two Second Appeals bearing AFA Nos. 84 of 1994 and 85 of 1994 before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

The Division Bench vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2009, allowed AFA No. 84 of 1994, and dismissed AFA No. 85 of 1994.

The division bench noted that the decision of the full bench in P.K. Achutan (supra) had been over-ruled in Janardhana Mallan & Ors. vs. Gangadharan & Ors. AIR 1983 Ker 178 wherein a five-judge bench of the Kerala High Court held that future installments payable by a chit subscriber are not a debt owed to the chit foreman, and therefore, could not be recovered in case of default in payment of an installment.

The subsequent larger bench decision of five judges in Janardhana Mallan (supra) was evidently not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in K.P. Subbarama Sastri (supra). The decision in Achutan's case would no longer hold the field, since it had been over-ruled by the larger bench in Janardhana Mallan's case.

The Division Bench held that by entering into a chitty agreement, a debt is not created at once by the subscriber in respect of payment of all future installments, as the chitty variola only contains a promise to pay, which is not a promise to repay an existing debt, but only to pay and discharge a contractual obligation. The execution of the security bond is to ensure fulfillment of the terms of the contract by the parties. If the subscriber fails to pay future installments in terms of the contractual obligations, then the subscriber would become a defaulter, he would incur a debt to the foreman, and would not be a liability to pay in future of an existing liability.

On the facts of the case, the division bench held that the Appellant - Company was entitled to recover 12 installments from the Respondents for the period from 24.11.1981 to 24.11.1984. However, future installments could not be recovered.

2.5 Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the Appellant - chit fund company filed the present Special Leave Petition. This Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 10.08.2009 granted special leave to appeal. The dispute between the parties got resolved during the pendency of the present appeal.

This Court vide Order dated 13.11.2009 noted the submission made by the Counsel for the Appellant that several suits had been filed by the Appellant -Company against the subscribers, which had been dismissed on the basis of the impugned judgment. In these circumstances, the present Appeal was pressed for determination.

3. Discussion and Analysis

At the time when modern banking was not fully developed in small towns and rural areas, chit fund institutions emerged to cater to the financial needs of low-income households. A conventional chit fund is an old indigenous financial institution involving periodic subscriptions by a group of persons. It is, in law, a contract between the subscribers and the foreman, which provides that the subscribers shall subscribe a certain sum by way of regular installments for a specified period of time. Each subscriber in his turn, as determined by lot, or auction, or in any other manner specified, is entitled to the prize amount. The number of subscribers in a chit fund would constitute the number of installments, so that every subscriber is assured of receiving the prize amount. As there is a mutuality of interest amongst the subscribers to each chit fund, it constitutes a convenient instrument which combines savings and borrowings.

The duties of the foreman of the chit fund include enrolling subscribers, and drawing up the terms and conditions of the scheme in the form of an agreement. For these services, the foreman charges a commission, on which a ceiling is fixed.

Each prized subscriber must furnish acceptable security against the remaining installments, so as to be eligible to receive the lumpsum payment. The security is to be furnished by the subscriber directly to the foreman. In the event of default by a subscriber to pay his installments on the due date, the chit fund scheme may provide for forfeiture of dividend, or levy of penal interest.

4. A full bench of the Kerala High Court in P.K. Achutan (supra), held that it is manifest that what actually transpires when a prized subscriber is allowed to draw the kuri amount is the grant of loan to him from the common fund in the hands of the foreman with the concessional facility of effecting repayment in installments, which is subject to the stipulation that the said concession is liable to be withdrawn in the event of default being committed in payment of any of the installments. It is a debt in praesenti, but permitted to be paid in installments, for the benefit of the debtor so long as the installments are regularly paid. This being the true nature of the, the stipulation for furnishing a security bond which would enable the foreman to recover from the prized subscriber, the whole of the balance amount due from him in a lump sum when default occurs in payment of any of the installments. Such a stipulation cannot be regarded as a penalty clause. It is necessary for the foreman of a chit who occupies a special relationship with all the subscribers of the chit fund, which would justify stringent provisions being incorporated in the agreement for safeguarding the interest of all the subscribers. Without punctual payments by the individual subscribers, the foreman will not be in a position to discharge his obligations to the other subscribers. It is therefore necessary that the foreman should reserve to himself the power to recover in a lump sum, the entire balance amount due in respect of future installments, on a default being committed by a prized subscriber. In the context of the special features and incidents of chit fund transactions, the incorporation of a stipulation in the chitty hypothecation bond, cannot be regarded to be unconscionable or penal in nature.

5. In Janardhana Mallan (supra), a five-judge bench of the Kerala High Court overruled the decision in P.K. Achutan (supra), and held that it would not be possible to say that on entering into the chitty agreement a debt is incurred by the subscriber for the amount of all the future installments, and in respect of such amount there is a debtor - creditor relationship. The chitty variola embodies a promise to pay on future dates. It is not a promise to repay an existing debt, but in discharge of a contractual obligation. The prize amount is not received as a loan, but by virtue of the terms of the contract between the parties.

6. The Chits Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1982 Act") was enacted by Parliament, and came into force on 19.08.1982. The issue of the applicability of the 1982 Act to the State of Kerala was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 106. The Constitution Bench held that on the enactment of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 which covered the entire field of "chits" under Entry 7 of List III of the Constitution, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 stood impliedly repealed. As a consequence, the Central Act became applicable forthwith in the State of Kerala, even though the Kerala legislature notified the 1982 Act on 30.04.2012.

7. The constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 was challenged before this Court in Shriram Chits & Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2063. The challenge to the vires of the various provisions under the 1982 Act was repelled. This Court held that all the provisions under the 1982 Act are relevant and material to protect the interest of the subscribers. The three-judge bench held that:

"15. We were referred to the decision of this Court in K.P. Subbarama Sastri and Ors. vs. K.S. Raghavan and Ors. : [1987] 2 SCR 767 wherein a contract providing for payment of money in installments and stipulating that on default in payment of any of the installments all the future installments shall be payable at a time with interest was held not penal in nature in the case of kuri transaction under the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975. While upholding the transaction a Bench of this Court approved the decision of the earlier Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case P.K. Achuthan (supra) wherein the Kerala High Court had upheld such a transaction and held it, to be of not a penal nature. In this context Eradi, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Full Bench observed that a subscriber truly and really becomes a debtor for the prized amount paid to him. It will be noticed that the later Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Janardhana Mallan and Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court and the Court was referred to the over-ruled decision of the Kerala High Court. The fact remains that the question involved before us as to the true nature of transaction for the purpose of finding out the relevant entry in the Constitution into which it may fall, was not involved in that case.

16. It appears to us, but for the discordant note struck by the other Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid case of P.K. Achuthan (Supra), the consistent view of all the High Courts has been that it is not a money lending transaction and that there is no relationship of debtor and creditor for the purpose of it being treated as a money lending transaction." (emphasis supplied)

The reference made to the judgment in P.K. Achutan (supra) and Janardhana Mallan (supra) was in passing, and this Court did not either affirm, or reject the ratio laid down in either of these cases.

8. Where a contract provides for payment of money in installments, and contains a stipulation that on default being committed in paying any of the installments, the whole sum shall become payable at once, such a stipulation would not be in the nature of a penalty.

9. The division bench in the impugned Judgment dated 15.01.2009, held that by entering into a chitty agreement, a debt is not created at once by the subscriber with respect to the amount of all the future installments. The chitty agreement embodies a promise to pay and discharge a contractual obligation, and not a promise to repay an existing debt.

10. We do not agree with the view expressed by the division bench. When a prized subscriber is allowed to draw the chit amount, which is in the nature of a grant of a loan to him from the common fund in the hands of the foreman, with the concessional facility of effecting re-payment in installments; this is subject to the stipulation that the concession is liable to be withdrawn in the event of default being committed in payment of any of the installments.

The chit subscriber at the time of subscription, incurs a debt which is payable in installments. If a subscriber is permitted to withdraw the collected sum on his turn, without being bound to pay the future installments, it would jeopardize the interest of all other subscribers, and the entire mechanism of the chit fund system would collapse.

11. A perusal of the provisions of Chapter V of the 1982 Act makes it clear that if a prized subscriber defaults in making payment of an installment, the chit foreman has the right to recover the amount covering all future subscriptions from the defaulting subscriber as a consolidated amount.

Section 32 of the 1982 Act empowers the foreman to recover the consolidated payment of all future subscriptions forthwith in the case of a default.

Chapter V of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 prescribes the rights and duties of prized subscribers. Section 31 to 33 in Chapter V read as follows :

"31. Prized subscriber to furnish security.- Every prized subscriber shall, if he has not offered to deduct the amount of all future subscriptions from the prize amount due to him, furnish, and a foreman shall take, sufficient security for the due payment of all future subscriptions and, if the foreman is a prized subscriber, he shall give security for the due payment of all the future subscriptions to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

32. Prized subscriber to pay subscriptions regularly. - Every prized subscriber shall pay his subscriptions regularly on the dates and times and at the place mentioned in the chit agreement and, on his failure to do so, he shall be liable to make a consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions forthwith.

33. Foreman to demand future subscriptions by written notice.- A foreman shall not be entitled to claim a consolidated payment from a defaulting prized subscriber under Section 32 unless he makes a demand to that effect in writing.

(2) Where a dispute is raised under this Act by a foreman for a consolidated payment of future subscriptions from a defaulting prized subscriber and if the subscriber pays to the foreman on or before the date to which the dispute is posted for hearing the arrears of subscriptions till that date together with the interest thereon at the rate provided for in the chit agreement and the cost of adjudication of the dispute, the Registrar or his nominee hearing the dispute shall, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, make an order directing the subscriber to pay to the foreman the future subscriptions on or before the dates on which they fall due, and that, in case of any default of such payments by the subscriber, the foreman shall be at liberty to realise, in execution of that order, all future subscriptions and interest together with the costs, if any, less the amount, if any, already paid by the subscriber in respect thereof:

Provided that if any such dispute is on a promissory note, no order shall be passed under this sub-section unless such promissory note expressly states that the amount due under the promissory note is towards the payment of subscriptions to the chit.

(3) Any person who holds any interest in the property furnished as security or part thereof, shall be entitled to make the payment under sub-section (2).

(4) All consolidated payments of future subscriptions realised by a foreman shall be deposited by him in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement before the date of the succeeding instalment and the amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn except for payment of future subscriptions. (5) Where any property is obtained as security in lieu of the consolidated payment of future subscriptions, it sha

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ll remain as security for the due payment of future subscriptions."(emphasis supplied) 12. The object is to empower the foreman to recover the amount in a lump sum from a defaulting subscriber, so as to secure the interest of the other subscribers, and ensure smooth functioning of the Chit Fund. Such a provision would not amount to a penalty. 13. The relationship between the foreman and the subscribers in a chit fund transaction is of such a nature that there is a necessity and justification for making stringent provisions to safeguard the interest of the other subscribers, and the foreman. If a prized subscriber defaults in payment of his subscriptions, the foreman will be obliged to obtain the equivalent amount from other sources, to meet the obligations for payment of the chit amount to the other members, who prize the chit on subsequent draws. For raising such an amount, the foreman may be required to pay high rates of interest. 14. The stipulation of empowering the foreman to recover the entire balance amount in a lump sum, in the event of default being committed by a prized subscriber, is to ensure punctual payment by each of the individual subscribers of the chit fund. Without punctual payments, the system would become unworkable, and the foreman would not be in a position to discharge his obligations to the other members of the chit fund. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the relationship between a chit subscriber and the chit foreman is a contractual obligation, which creates a debt on the day of subscription. On default taking place, the foreman is entitled to recover the consolidated amount of future subscriptions from the defaulting subscriber in a lump sum. 16. The impugned judgment dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in AFA No. 85 of 1994 is set aside. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Chief Manager Versus Seetakanta Patnaik National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 Jewellery World, Orissa Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Orissa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam, Represented by its Branch manager, Kumbakonam Versus Nirmala & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur Versus Brahmanand Javvadi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Coimbatore & Another Versus N. Dhanalakshmi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vishwanatha & Another High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 P.D. Vinay Versus Conica Shambaya High Court of Karnataka
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-08-2020 M/s. Oriental Engineers Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-08-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kodungallur Versus M.M. Jose Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-08-2020 Liju Jose & Another Versus Anto P. Ignatious & Another High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 The District Collector, Ernakulam & Others Versus Fr. Jose Uppani, Director, 'Sneha Sishrushalayam'(Chittoor Retreat Centre), Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
15-07-2020 Shiv Khorana (Advocate), Deceased Through LRs. Parveen Khorana Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
07-07-2020 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Versus Sajeetha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Others Versus Jose George Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
01-07-2020 M/s. Gulabchand Shankar Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus K.M. Harish Kumar High Court of Karnataka
08-06-2020 P.P. Jose, Manager, Mattoor, Kalady, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M.M. Abdulkhader, Proprietor, East India Trading Company, Kothamangalam & Another High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-03-2020 Union of India Versus P.D. Sunny & Others Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Chief Manager Versus Arvind Kumar Jain National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tiruvannamalai Versus Poongavanam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Chhaju Ram & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Palghad, Kerala State Versus M. Arul @ Arulkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla, Himachala Pradesh Versus Bir Singh Rana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus R. Damodharan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Broadway, Chennai & Another Versus G. Saravanan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 M/s. Deluxe Enterprises, H.P. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 O. Thomas & Others Versus Dr. Abraham Jose, Prof. of Orthopaedics, Pushpagiri Medical College, Thiruvalla & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
02-03-2020 Jose Versus Johnson Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Dharmapuri Versus Venkatraman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus M. Baby Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Puducherry Versus Prabu, Rajendran, Senthilkumar, Nagappan, Chandrasekar & Minor Balaji, Rep. by his mother & next friend Jothi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra Versus M/s. Dangi Financial & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. M.L. Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Haryana & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Magma Fincorp Ltd., Kolkata Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus National Bulk Handling Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 Jose Mathew Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies (B) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 Anandbhai Mansangbhai Chaudhury At Navin Paru Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited Umiya Shopping Center, Gujarat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-02-2020 Rajankumar & Brothers (Impex) Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Jose Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Anjalai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 State of Kerala, Rep. by The District Collector, Idukki & Another Versus P.D. Raveendran & Another High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 Rajinder Singh Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Manager, Haryana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-01-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hindupur. Versus Mani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager Versus Navrose & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
29-01-2020 Bhuma Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V/S Oriental Bank of Commerce Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
28-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus M/s. J.K. Cement Works Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 Martin Jose & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Inspector Of Police, Kalady, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 The Chief Regional Officer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pradip & Another Supreme Court of India
23-01-2020 M/s. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director & Chairman P. Jose Versus Rajiv Kumar Ishwar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Oriental Metals Versus K. Faizal & Another High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 Kuttan Versus Varanamalyam Kuries (P) Ltd., Rep. by Manager Radhakrishnan, Thrissur & Another High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dharmapuri Versus Kamatchi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Hathua Lahurabeer, Varanasi, U.P. & Others Versus M/s. Rizwan Export House & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Manju Rathore & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-01-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thodupuzha, Represented by Its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Kochi Versus Salim & Others High Court of Kerala
15-01-2020 Sreelakshmi Kuries & Loans Pvt. Ltd., Palakkad, Represented by Its Manager, M. Haridasan Versus V.M. Vijeesh & Another High Court of Kerala
15-01-2020 M/s. S.R. Bio Chem Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-01-2020 Sam Daniel V/S A.A. Jose & Another High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by the Divisional Manager Versus A.V. Rajaram Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
03-01-2020 Oriental Bank of Commerce V/S Manik Malakar and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata
03-01-2020 Ramjan Jute Bag and Others. V/S Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata
24-12-2019 M/s. E-Durables, Uttar Pradesh Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-12-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Srimati Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
10-12-2019 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versus Manonmani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hosur Versus Premkumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Jose Olimpia Martins & Others Versus State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-12-2019 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Regional Manager, Chennai Versus M/s. Monotech Systems Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai V/S Ramanamma & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 P.H. Salim Versus Joji Jose & Another High Court of Kerala
02-12-2019 P.D. Sudheeshkumar Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 Jose Sebastian Versus State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Jhamb Spark Colours Street Raja Raj Kalia National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-11-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Parul Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-11-2019 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Dicitex Furnishing Ltd. Supreme Court of India
12-11-2019 Jose Philip & Another Versus Muhammed Ali & Another High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through its Divisional Manager Versus Habib Khaled Habib Mohammad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-11-2019 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Gayatri Capital Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director Finance Sh. K.P. Ravindranath & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-11-2019 The Divisional Manager, Rep. by its Balakrishna Nayak, Asst. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another Versus Manjula & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-11-2019 Avalon Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-10-2019 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Pawan Gupta Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
23-10-2019 Excel Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
15-10-2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Motor Third Party, Claims Hub, Chennai Versus V. Sangeetha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras