In this Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal after finding no merit in challenging the Single Judge's observation that auction acquisition of property is not a transfer under Section 93A of the ESI Act.
No order passed as Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
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 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Letters Patent Appeal No.3/2007 in First Appeal No.188/2006
[Employees State Insurance Corporation, Nagpur and another .vrs. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works, Nagpur and another]
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition of property by way of auction constitutes transfer under Section 93A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
Whether the Single Judge's finding that no substantial question of law arises is unsustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Nagpur and another
Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works, Nagpur and another
K.J. ROHEE
PRASANNA B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
