The single-judge bench dismissed a Section 30 application seeking exemption from deposit as no such provision exists. The appeal filed on inability to deposit was held not maintainable and dismissed.
Application dismissed; appeal dismissed holding it was not maintainable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.25330-CII-2009 and FAO No.5188 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 25.1.2010
Rajinder Pal Sharma
. . . . Appellant
VS.
Surjit Kaur and others . . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)
CM No.25330-CII-2009
This is an application under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the ‘Act’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking exemption from depositing the amount awarded under the Act in terms of Section 30 of the Act.
As such there is no provision for grant of exemption hence, the application is hereby dismissed.
FAO No.5188 of 2009
Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not in a position to deposit the amount.
In view of the above, the present appeal is not maintainable as such the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JANUARY 25, 2010 JUDGE vivek
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exemption from depositing the amount awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be granted.
Whether an appeal for inability to deposit the awarded amount is maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajinder Pal Sharma
Surjit Kaur and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
