Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1863 (RAJ)

Ram Swaroop v. L. I. C.

2010-11-03

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set to quash and set aside the demand notice dated 11th May, 2009 issued by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation filed a suit of recovery of money against the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Tonk. The suit was decreed against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 61,475/- together with interest @ 15 and half percent to be paid from 9th February, 1994, till its realization. 3. Pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 2001 passed by the district Judge, Tonk, Branch Manager L.I.C. Branch Office, Tonk issued a demand notice of Rs. 1,50,308/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved with this demand notice, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 4. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The provisions of Article 227 envisages the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. The High Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 227 when the impugned order of the Court is found to be perverse, contrary to law or it results manifesting injustice. The relief is granted against the inferior Courts and Tribunals. Generally, this power is limited to want of jurisdiction, error of law, perverse findings, gross violation of natural justice, orders manifesting injustice and so on. In the instant case, the respondent who is found to have issued demand notice is neither a Court nor a Tribunal. It is the Branch Office of Life Insurance Corporation of Tonk, which is other than the Court or the Tribunal. 5. The writ petition, being viewed from this angle, is found to be totally irrelevant, baseless and bereft of any merit, which deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly.