Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1419/2026 of WASEEM RAJA BHAT Vs UNION OF INDIA TH.SECRETARY TO (MINISTRY OF FINANCE) AND OTHERS on 3 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1419/2026 CM No. (3747/2026) Waseem Raja Bhat …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Aasifa Padroo, Advocate with Ms. Tabinda Yousuf, Advocate VERSUS Union of India And Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Rehana, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1419/2026
CM No. (3747/2026)
Waseem Raja Bhat
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Aasifa Padroo, Advocate with Ms. Tabinda Yousuf, Advocate
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Rehana, Advocate vice
Mr. T.M Shamsi, DSGI
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.07.2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, is intending this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India aiming in principal for a direction unto the respondent No. 2 i.e., United India Insurance Company Limited with whom the petitioner had insured his machine – LNT Excavator vide Policy No. 1114014423P110111224.
2. By reference to some twists and turns relatable to a criminal case, the petitioner is meaning to Sr. No. 132 Supp. 1
read that since there is no culpability bearing upon the petitioner in terms of his machine- Excavator being used in any commission of offence, as such, the respondent No. 2 is obliged to indemnify the petitioner for the loss and damage caused and suffered to the insured property.
3. The respondent No. 2, by virtue of a communication dated 08.06.2026, has repudiated the insurance claim of the petitioner bearing a recital that as per the respondent No. 2, the petitioner’s insured machine was found to be permitted by the petitioner to be used for an illegal extraction of the minerals on spot at the time of insured event and thus constitutes violation of policy stipulation as per the insurance policy obtaining between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2.
4. This Court is afraid that it can enter disputed territory of facts, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the standpoint of the respondent
No. 2 as set out in the impugned repudiation notice is not correct but still the respondent No. 2 is entitled to claim that it is well within its right as an insurer to repudiate the claim of the petitioner as an insured and for that the petitioner is to avail appropriate available legal remedy under and by reference of contract of insurance rather than coming up seeking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition leaving it free for the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy, be it by approaching an appropriate consumer forum or a civil court as the case may be, for enforcing his claim against the respondent No. 2 for earning the indemnification.
6. The petitioner shall, of course, be well within his right to put up an appropriate all pleas relatable to his standpoint to the effect that his insured machine was at no point of time involved in any
alleged commission amounting to offence so as to suffer disqualification for earning indemnification from the respondent No. 2.
7. Disposed of as dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 03.07.2026 Akhil Dev