Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S OSRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, FA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Osram India Private Limited v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, Fa - CWP-2627-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 601 (7 February 2006)

C.W.P. No. 2627 of 2006 1

......

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision : February 21, 2006.

M/s Osram India Private Limited .. Petitioners Versus

Employee State Insurance Corporation, Faridabad and others. ... Respondents

CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal.
Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal.

Present : Shri Mahesh Grover, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

K.S.Garewal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner's application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short "the Act") is pending before the Court empowered under the Act (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat) and is fixed for February 25, 2006. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the said application as Annexure P/2. Therein, the petitioner has prayed that the order passed against the petitioner under Section 45-A of the Act be set- aside and the recovery be stayed till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner has also filed an application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for C.W.P. No. 2627 of 2006 2

......

restraining the defendants from recovering the amount in question. Copy of this application is annexed as Annexure P/3. Furthermore, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 75(2) of the Act for waiver of deposit of 50% of the amount. Copy of this application is annexed as Annexure P/3-A with this petition.

On February 15, 2006, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Faridabad, respondent No.1, has issued an order to Recovery Officer, respondent No. 4, for recovery of about Rs. 43.98 lacs from the petitioner-company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a mode of recovery in such cases is given in Section 45-C of the Act and recovery can be made either by attachment and sale of the movable and immovable property, arrest of the employer and his detention in prison or appointment of a Receiver. It is obvious that the above modes are quite harsh.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner- company is ready and willing to tender the full amount of the dues and is possessed of two cheques bearing Nos. 268074 and 268075 dated February 20, 2006, each amounting to Rs.21,99,458/- (Total Rs.43,98,916/-) drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Gurgaon. However, the petitioner deserves a hearing of his applications for interim injunction and also for waiver but since these applications are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat for February 25, 2006, the petitioner is without any protection of stay of recovery for the period between today and February 25, 2006.

The bonafides of the petitioner appear to be genuine because C.W.P. No. 2627 of 2006 3

......

learned counsel has made an offer to deposit the entire amount but has simply prayed for a hearing of the said applications for stay and waiver, because the amount fixed by the respondents has not been accepted and is being questioned.

It seems to us that this petition is not maintainable at this stage as the matter is sub-judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonepat is directed to entertain the interim stay application, which the petitioner shall be filing alongwith the cheques for the due amount and shall decide the applications for Stay and Waiver as soon as possible in accordance with law.

In case the petitioner files an application for advancing the date of hearing, the learned Judge shall consider that application in the light of the peculiar circumstances of this case.

A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Reader of this Court.

[ K.S.GAREWAL]

JUDGE

[ PRITAM PAL]

February 21, 2006 JUDGE

som


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.