(O&M) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, LUDHIANA. PARDEEP BEDI, PARMOD GOYAL, GURDEV SINGH, vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ETC. — RSA/2530/1995

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010366241995

Filing Number

RSA/2530/1995

Filing Date

05-May-5500

Registration No

RSA/2530/1995

Registration Date

05-May-5500

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.(O&M) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, LUDHIANA. PARDEEP BEDI, PARMOD GOYAL, GURDEV SINGH,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ETC.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-5500

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/2530/1995

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    Summary The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed United India Insurance Company's second appeal, reversing the First Appellate Court's decision that held the insurance company liable to pay ₹1,50,000 to Indian Overseas Bank. The court found the Bank was estopped from claiming insurance proceeds because it had explicitly stated in an earlier suit that it had no concern with the insurance company, on which representation the insurer had already settled the claim with the borrower. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed United India Insurance Company's second appeal, reversing the First Appellate Court's decision that held the insurance company liable to pay ₹1,50,000 to Indian Overseas Bank. The court found the Bank was estopped from claiming insurance proceeds because it had explicitly stated in an earlier suit that it had no concern with the insurance company, on which representation the insurer had already settled the claim with the borrower. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case