Parmati & Anr. v. Spice Mobile & Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
This revision petition challenged orders restoring a default application and setting aside an ex parte compensation order. The High Court modified the orders, directing the respondents to bear costs of Rs. 10,000 for the ex parte proceedings.
What did the court decide?
Respondents directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the petitioners precedent to the revocation of the setting aside of the ex parte order.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2639 of 2010 Date of decision: 3rd October, 2012
Parmati Devi and another
...... Petitioners
versus
Spice Mobile Company and another
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present: Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the respondents.
L.N.MITTAL, J.(Oral)
Claimants before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the Commissioner') have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Commissioner.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex parte order allowing the compensation claim should be set aside and, if restored, what costs are to be awarded to the petitioners?
Whether the Commissioner properly exercised its powers in modifying the impugned orders regarding service of notices and restoration of the default application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Parmati Devi and another
- respondent
Spice Mobile Company and another
Coram
L.N. Mittal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- CR/2639/2010
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court