Single Judge Appeal considered whether limitation under Section 77 of the ESI Act applies following a remand under Section 45-A. The Court, following an Apex Court precedent, held that such limitation does not attract and quashed the impugned order.
Impugned order dated 24.10.2005 passed by ESI Court, Pune quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.898 OF 2007
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s Orders
Mr.H.V.Mehta for the appellant.
Mr.A.D.Patwardhan for the respondents.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.
DATED : 29th October, 2007
P.C.
| In | view | of the |
judge | ment | of | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the | Apex | Court | reported | in | 2007 | III |
| CLR | 267, | ESIC | vs. | C. | C. | Santha |
| Kumar, | b | oth the |
parties | agree | that | |
| matter | be | remanded | back | on | the | issue |
| of | limitat | ion as |
after | passing | the | |
| order | unde | r section |
45-A | of | the | ESI |
| Act, | 1948, | the | limita | tion | pres | cribed |
| under | section | 77 of |
the | ESI | Act | does |
| not | get | attracted. | Th |
e ma |
tter | is |
| therefore | remanded | only to this |
limited extent.
Resultantly, the impugned
2
order dated 24.10.2005 passed by ESI Court, Pune is quashed and set
aside. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the limitation under Section 77 of the ESI Act applies after a remand order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act.
Whether the impugned order of the ESI Court Pune should be quashed based on the Apex Court judgment in ESIC vs. C.C. Santha Kumar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ESIC vs. C. C. Santha KumarFollowed¶11
2007 III CLR 267
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.C.
Unnamed
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
