Allowed

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Mumbai v. Sanjayprasad Tuleshwarsahu Gupta and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2024IA/1106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application for stay of compensation award allowed. The Court permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount while staying the execution of the impugned order pending the final disposal of the First Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stay of operation of impugned award granted; Respondent allowed to withdraw 50% of deposited amount.

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24-2-IA-1106-2024-IN-FAST-34013-2023.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1106 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 34013 OF 2023

¶7

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd Mumbai ...Applicant In The Matter Between Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd Mumbai …Appellant Versus Sanjayprasad Tuleshwarsahu Gupta & Anr …Respondents

¶8

Mr Sarthak S Diwan , for the Applicant. Ms Yashika S Jain , i/b Jitendra Gor, for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE

¶10

Digitally signed by SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2024.11.22 19:05:34 +0530

¶11

CORAM: ARIF S. DOCTOR, J DATED: 21st November 2024

¶12

PC:-

¶13

The present Interim Application is filed for a stay of the impugned order. The impugned order is passed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. By the impugned order, the Appellant has been directed to pay the Respondent an amount of Rs.9,67,968/-.

¶14

The challenge is primarily on the ground of the impugned order being in violation of the policy of the Appellant. The Learned Counsel

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

24-2-IA-1106-2024-IN-FAST-34013-2023.DOC

¶17

appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the entire amount of compensation, which was directed to be paid to the Respondent has been deposited before the learned Commissioner on 26th October 2023.

¶18

Pursuant to the said order, an amount of Rs. 14,26,925/- has been deposited before the Trial Court. He thus seeks a stay on the operation of the Order. There is no objection to the grant of a stay save and except that the the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the Respondent be permitted to withdraw 75% of the said amount.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, however, very fairly does not oppose the withdrawal per say but submits that it would be confined to 50% of the amount.

¶20

Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, I find that at this stage to permit 50% of the withdrawal of the amount would be fair and equitable in the interest of justice.

¶21

Interim Application for stay is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as follows:

¶22

“(b) ”That pending hearing and final disposal of the present First Appeal, the effect, operation, implementation and execution of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 15.06/2023 passed by the Ld Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Judge Third Labour Court at Mumbai in Application (ECA) No. 109/C-46/2021 and disbursal of amount thereunder, be kindly stayed.”

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

24-2-IA-1106-2024-IN-FAST-34013-2023.DOC

¶25

However, it is made clear that Respondent No. 1 is allowed to withdraw to 50% of the amount deposited.

¶26

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J)

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Mumbai v. Sanjayprasad Tuleshwarsahu Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Mumbai v. Sanjayprasad Tuleshwarsahu Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushama Sengstschmid Daughter of Digambar Ramchandra Tanksale vs Digambar Ramchandra Tanksale Alias Tanksale Digambar Ramchandra

Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs Century Sales Corporation and Anr.

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs Rajendra Anantrai Soni and 2 Ors.

Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar and 3 Ors. Vs Chandrashekhar Hirjibhai Thakker and 4 Ors.

Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar and 3 Ors. Vs Dr.Chandrashekhar Hirji- Bhai Thakkar and 5 Ors.

P L Adke Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.