Disposed¶15

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Its Manager v. Vishnu Arjun Sanap and Other

Bombay HC8 Aug 2025CAF/1137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 19-day delay in first appeal; stay of Employees' Compensation award; deposit of entire compensation amount with interest with Commissioner, Buldhana; substantial question of law on insurer's liability where premium not credited by employer/respondent No.2; admission of First Appeal Stamp No. 7298 of 2024; ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Vishnu Arjun Sanap; Nagpur Bench; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; order dated 08-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 19 days in filing the appeal condoned and appeal to be registered; stay granted to the impugned judgment and order in terms of prayer clause 1; appeal admitted with the substantial question of law framed; notice to respondents returnable in four weeks; record and proceedings called for. ¶15

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Its Manager Vs Vishnu Arjun Sanap and Other — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 19 days caused in preferring the appeal should be condoned, i.e., whether sufficient cause has been shown. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The objection to condonation was rejected; the reasons disclosed in the application were held sufficient, the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be registered.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the appellant had deposited the entire compensation amount along with interest, the objections to the stay were found without substance and Civil Application (CAF) No. 1138 of 2024 was allowed in terms of prayer clause 1, granting stay of the impugned judgment and order.

¶19

Key takeaways

The court held that the applicant rightly framed the substantial question of law and accordingly framed it: whether the finding of the learned Commissioner fastening liability on the insurance company to pay compensation, in the absence of credit of the premium amount in the appellant's bank account by the employer/respondent No.2, is correct.ratio¶21
In view of the framed substantial question of law, the appeal was admitted; notice was issued to the respondents returnable in four weeks (waived by Mr. Ghuge for respondent No.1), and the record and proceedings were called for.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, at Nagpur (Abhay J. Mantri, J.; dated 08-08-2025), in Civil Applications (CAF) Nos. 1137 and 1138 of 2024 in First Appeal Stamp No. 7298 of 2024 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Vishnu Arjun Sanap and anr.): (i) condoned the 19-day delay in filing the first appeal against the judgment/order of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Judge Labour Court, Buldhana, finding the reasons disclosed sufficient despite the objection of respondent No. 1; (ii) granted stay of the impugned judgment and order in terms of prayer clause 1, noting that the appellant-insurer had deposited the entire compensation amount along with interest with the Commissioner; and (iii) admitted the appeal, framing the substantial question of law whether the Commissioner rightly fastened liability on the insurance company to pay compensation in the absence of credit of the premium amount in the insurer's bank account by the employer/respondent No.2, issued notice returnable in four weeks (waived for respondent No.1 by Mr. R.N. Ghuge), and called for the record and proceedings.

¶1

1 15caf1137.2024...odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 1137 OF 2024 and CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 1138 OF 2024 in

¶4

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 7298 OF 2024

¶5

(ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd Vs.Vishnu Arjun Sanap and anr)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

¶10

Mr.R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for non-applicant No.1.

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

¶12

DATED : 08-08-2025

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The applicant has filed this application to condone the delay of 19 days caused in preferring the appeal, for which learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has objected as no sufficient cause has been mentioned in the application.

¶15

Having gone through the application and impugned judgment, I do not find substance in the objection. On the contrary, it appears that the reasons disclosed in the application are sufficient to condone the delay. In view of the same, the application is allowed. The delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal to be registered.

¶16

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 1138 OF 2024

¶17

The applicant submitted that it has deposited the entire compensation amount along with interest with the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and the Judge Labour Court, Buldhana and therefore, urged to grant a stay to the impugned judgment and order. The other side has objected to the grant of stay. However, considering the reason and the fact that the appellant has deposited the entire

¶18

2 15caf1137.2024...odt

¶19

amount, I find no substance in the objections. As such, application is allowed in terms of the prayer clause 1.

¶20

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 7298 OF 2024

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to the findings recorded in paragraph 24, by learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Judge Labour Court, Buldhana and urged that said finding itself indicates that no amount of the premium was credited in the bank account of the insurance company. He has also pointed out substantial questions of law framed by the appellant in paragraph 8 of the application. Having gone through the judgment and substantial question of law, I am of the view that the applicant rightly frames the substantial question of law; hence, I would like to frame the substantial question of law as under:

¶22

‘Whether the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation, in the absence of the credit of the premium amount in the bank account of the appellant by the employer/respondent No.2 ?’

¶23

In view of the above, the appeal is ‘Admitted’ .

¶24

Issue notice to respondents, returnable in four weeks.

¶25

Mr. Ghuge, learned counsel, waives notice for respondent

¶26

No.1.

¶27

Call for record and proceedings.

¶28

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶29

Belkhede

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Its Manager v. Vishnu Arjun Sanap and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Its Manager v. Vishnu Arjun Sanap and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Its Branch Manager, Nagpur Vs Smt. Maya Wd/O Sanjay Akhare and Others

Swami Dhyan Chatyana Maharaj (Secty.)Shri Swami Atmachaitanya Vishveshwar Trust, Wardha and 2 Other Vs Shri Kiran Balwantrao Deshmukh and Others

Sunilkumar Prakashchandra Sahu and Others Vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Narayan S/O Bhaddu Pawar and Others Vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Cst

Mrs. Ashvini Wd/O. Sayalu Halde and Others Vs Union of India Thr. General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad

Smt. Vijaya Balkrushna Kakde and Another Vs Union of India through Its General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai