Dismissed

Dr.Curies Labs Limited, a.R.Reddy, a.Viswanath, v. The Honble Employees Insurance Court-cum-

Telangana HC13 Sept 2006WP/18896/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Curie's Labs Limited challenged the rejection of an application to produce secondary evidence of an MOU before the Employees Insurance Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner failed to prove loss of the original or make reasonable efforts to obtain a copy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief granted.

Dr.Curies Labs Limited, a.R.Reddy, a.Viswanath, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.No. 18896 of 2006

¶3

13-09-2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dr. Curie’s Labs Limited, A.R. Reddy, A. Viswanath, S.Basu Thakur, 6-3-652, Kautilya (III Floor), Somajiguda, Hyderabad, represented By its Authorised Signator, Mr. V. Narasimha Reddy. … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Honble Employees Insurance court-cumIndustrial Tribunal, represented by its Chairman and another. … Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶9

W.P.No.18896 of 2006

¶10

Oral Order:

¶11

The Writ Petition is misconceived. By the order impugned, the learned Employees Insurance Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad rejected I.A.No.47 of 2006 in Employees Insurance Case No.46 of 2002. The interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 seeking to mark a xerox copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 3.11.1999 as secondary evidence. The said instrument was pleaded to be an MOU between the current promoters/managers of the petitioner-company and the previous promoters/managers.

¶12

Under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, proceedings were initiated demanding a specified amount towards arrears of insurance liability and penalty. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed E.I.C.No.46 of 2002 before the Insurance Court whereat petitioner also filed I.A.No.47 of 2006 to bring on record and mark a xerox copy of an MOU dated 3.11.1999.

¶13

The Court below by the order impugned, rightly rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that it had lost the original document and therefore secondary evidence ought to be taken into consideration. The petitioner has also

¶14

failed to plead and establish that even if it had lost it’s copy of the MOU, it had made reasonable effort to procure the other copy of the MOU available with the previous promoters and that despite such effort, either the previous promoters/managers declined to furnish/supply their copy of the MOU or had not done so within a reasonable time.

¶15

This Court discerns no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Insurance Court warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

___________________ 13^th September, 2006 GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶17

vtv

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶19

W.P.No.18896 of 2006

¶20

13^tht September, 2006

Dr.Curies Labs Limited, a.R.Reddy, a.Viswanath, v. The Honble Employees Insurance Court-cum-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Curies Labs Limited, a.R.Reddy, a.Viswanath, v. The Honble Employees Insurance Court-cum-

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

Yerva Rajamallu Vs Bangari Rajaiah

All Religious Welfare Society, Regd.No.1205, 8-1-21, Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad

Muppalla Parisudda Rao Vs The Superintendent of Police

Dasari Darmaraju S/o Suryachandram, Vs The Special Deputy Collector/ Rdo.

Ullamparthi Prabhakara Rao Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Divisional

M/s. Safexpress (P) Ltd., Vs The Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station