Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Super Bhootpurva Sainik Surkcha Samiti v. Employees State Insurance Corporation And Others - WRIT - C No. 70497 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5788 (16 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70497 of 2005

M/s Super Bhootpurva Sainik Surakcha Samiti


Employees State Insurance Corporation& others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri  Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit.

Against an order passed by the E.S.I. authorities fixing a liability of Rs. 22,44,296/- on the petitioner for the period May, 1993 to March, 2003 the petitioner raised a dispute which was registered with the E.S.I.Court as Adjudication case no. 9 of 2005. In the said case the petitioner filed an application for waiver of deposit of fifty percent of the amount of its liability. Such application was allowed on 13.5.2005. The petitioner had also filed an application for stay of recovery of the amount from it which application has been rejected by the E.S.I. Court by its order dated 21.10.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

While allowing the application of the petitioner for waiver of deposit of fifty percent of the amount before the dispute is registered, the E.S.I. Court had recorded a prima facie finding that neither the petitioner carries on any manufacturing work nor would be covered under the definition of ''Factory' and as such it would be doubtful as to whether E.S.I. Act would be applicable in the present case. Further it was also observed in the said order that under section 77(1) (B) of the E.S.I. Act, no recovery for the period prior to five years could be made, whereas in the present case the recovery from May, 1993 to March, 2003 had been directed. Since the waiver application of the petitioner had been allowed on the aforesaid grounds, in my view, the stay application of the petitioner also ought to have been allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that the E.S.I. Court may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible on merits and till the final decision is taken by the E.S.I. Court, no recovery shall be made against the petitioner in pursuance of the order impugned before the E.S.I. Court.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 16.11.2005



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


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 |

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