Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Gujarat High Court

Employees' State Insurance ... vs India Chem Forte on 12 July, 2018

Author: Paresh Upadhyay

Bench: Paresh Upadhyay

            C/FA/3741/1996                                     ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3741 of 1996

==========================================================
              EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
                                Versus
                          INDIA CHEM FORTE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT S SHAH, ADVOCATE for the APPELLANT
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

                                Date : 12/07/2018

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This Appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Vadodara dated 16.11.1995 in Insurance Application No.01 of 1993.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Court below has held that the demand by the present appellant of an amount of Rs.5,537=90 and Rs.398=75 towards interest thereon was illegal. The same is set aside by the Court below, which is questioned in this appeal.

3. The Registry has put an endorsement to the effect that, the Record and Proceedings has not been received so far.

4. The stakes involved in the matter are such, where the Appeal need not be entertained on merits.

5. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant authority Page 1 of 2 C/FA/3741/1996 ORDER has however, attempted to make submissions on merits, by referring to certain judgments of the Supreme Court of India.

6. In the view of this Court, considering the fact that the stakes involved in the matter is less than Rs.6000/-, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining this Appeal. Since, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant states that a question of law needs to be answered in this matter, at his request, stand over to 16.08.2018.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 2 of 2