Allowed

S R S Diecasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corp. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2009FAO/3248/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a judgment dismissing a petition under Section 75 of the Employee Insurance Act, 1948 after closing the appellant's evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the subordinate court to decide afresh after granting two effective opportunities for evidence on both sides, subject to costs, wi

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon to decide afresh after granting two effective opportunities to lead e

S R S Diecasting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No. 3248 of 2007 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 3248 of 2007 Date of decision: September 17, 2009

¶4

SRS Diecasting Pvt. Limited

¶5

........ Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The employee State Insurance Corporation and others .......Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

¶17

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon, vide which the petition under Section 75 of the Employee Insurance Act, 1948 has been dismissed after closing the evidence of the petitioner, herein appellant, under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

The petition was dismissed solely on the ground that in spite of the appellant having been afforded several opportunities to produce its

¶19

FAO No. 3248 of 2007 2

¶20

evidence, the appellant failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of the appellant was closed by the Court order under Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC and the petition was dismissed.

¶21

A direction was given to the learned counsel for the appellant to place on record the interim orders, vide which opportunities were granted to the appellant to lead its evidence. Pursuant thereto, the appellant placed on record the copies of the orders passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon. It is apparent from the aforesaid orders that four opportunities were granted to the appellant to lead its evidence, but no evidence was forthcoming.

¶22

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant may be allowed only one more opportunity to lead its entire evidence. However, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is granted one last opportunity to lead its entire evidence, subject to payment of costs.

¶24

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Court to decide the same afresh after granting two effective opportunities to the appellant to lead their evidence, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondents. The respondents shall, thereafter be granted an equal number of effective opportunities to lead their evidence. It is also ordered that the matter shall be finally decided within six months from the date of appearance of the parties in the concerned Court.

¶25

FAO No. 3248 of 2007 3

¶26

The parties either themselves or through their counsel shall appear before the concerned Court, on 07.10.2009.

¶27

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶28

September 17 , 2009 mohan

S R S Diecasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corp. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S R S Diecasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corp. 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

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Vs Sahab Saran and Ors.

M/S Sukhbir Singh and Company Vs Pb. State Coop Supply and Anr.

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Vs R.S. Rice Mills & Anr.

M/S Bhaiya Sweet and Oors Vs M/S Bhaiya Sweets

State of Haryana Vs Ajit Kumar

Ram Ratti and Ors. Vs Union of India