Hitesh Ishwarlal Desai vs Govind Ranu Sarode — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hitesh Ishwarlal Desai vs Govind Ranu Sarode — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Admission of First Appeal FA/1134/2026; issue of notice to the Respondents (service waived for Respondent No.3); interim relief in the meantime in terms of prayer clause B; Appeal tagged with FA/505/2025; Civil Application allowed and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Proposed substantial question of law: whether the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, without any justification, wrongly imposed the liability of penalty against the Appellants. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the facts and grounds in the Appeal memo, the substantial question of law framed in connected Appeal No. 505/2025 and the Appellant's proposed substantial questions of law, the Appeal (FA/1134/2026) is admitted.

Key takeaways

Notice is ordered to be issued to the Respondents; Mr. Rathi, learned Advocate, waives service of notice for Respondent No.3.ratio¶¶29
In the meantime, interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause B of the Civil Application (the contents of prayer clause B are not reproduced in the order).ratio¶¶33
The Appeal (FA/1134/2026) is to be tagged along with FA/505/2025.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.; PER COURT), order dated 05-05-2026 in Civil Application No. 4044 of 2026 in FA/1134/2026, filed by Hitesh Ishwarlal Desai (Appellant/Applicant) against Govind Ranu Sarode and others, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation imposing penalty and costs against the Appellants. Noting that the Appellant had deposited the penalty and cost amount of Rs. 4,44,900/- before the learned Trial Court, and that connected Appeal No. 505/2025 arising from the same impugned judgment and order stood admitted on 21-03-2025, the Court admitted the Appeal in view of the substantial question of law framed in the connected Appeal, titled [Govind Ranu Sarode and another Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. and others], and the Appellant's four proposed substantial questions of law concerning (i) wrongful imposition of penalty by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation; (ii) death not occurring in the course of employment and insurance of the Appellant's employees by Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company; (iii) nexus between the accidental death and the deceased's employment so as to fix the insurer's liability under the insurance contract; and (iv) establishment of employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the alleged agreement between contractor and insured. Notice was ordered to the Respondents (Mr. Rathi waiving service for Respondent No.3), interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause B, the Appeal was directed to be tagged with FA/505/2025, and the Civil Application was allowed and disposed of.

(1)

956ca4044.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

956 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4044 OF 2026

IN FA/1134/2026 WITH FA/1134/2026

HITESH ISHWARLAL DESAI

….Applicant

VERSUS

GOVIND RANU SARODE

…..Respondent

Mr. D. A. Bide, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Anand Dale, Advocate h/f Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for the Respondent No.3

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 05^th MAY, 2026

PER COURT :

Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant

and learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Perused the record.

Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has deposited the penalty and cost amount of Rs. 4,44,900/before the learned Trial Court. He further submitted that the Appeal

bearing No. 505/2025 preferred by the insurance company arising from the impugned judgment and order is admitted by this Court on 21-03-2025. As such, he urged for admission of the Appeal as well as

grant of stay to the impugned judgment and order.

1 of 3

(2)

956ca4044.26.odt

Having considered the above facts and grounds raised by

the Appellants in the Appeal memo and in view of the substantial question of law framed by this Court in connected Appeal No. 505/2025, [Govind Ranu Sarode and another Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. and others] and also the proposed substantial question of law framed by the Appellant as follows :

i] Whether the learned Commissioner Employees Compensation without any justification has wrongly imposed the liability of penalty against the Appellants? ii] The deceased has not died during the course of employment, even otherwise the employees of the Appellant’s company are insured by the Respondent No. 3 Insurance company, therefore, the liability imposed against Appellant No. 1 is at all not permissible in the eyes of law.

iii] Whether the death of the deceased can be attributed to the employment or whether there is nexus between accidental death and employment of deceased so as to bring home liability of the insurer under terms and conditions of the insurance contract.

iv] Whether the Applicants have established employeremployee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No. 2 on the basis of alleged agreement between contractor and insured.

In view of the above, this Appeal is admitted .

Issue notice to the Respondents. Mr. Rathi, learned

Advocate, waives service of notice for the Respondent No.3.

2 of 3

(3)

956ca4044.26.odt

In the meantime, interim relief is granted in terms of

prayer clause B .

This Appeal is to be tagged along with the FA/505/2025.

In view of the above, the civil Application is allowed and

disposed of .

[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]

VishalK/956ca4044.26.odt

3 of 3