Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Koili Bewa And Ors. vs Akshaya Kr. Mishra And Anr. on 18 June, 1993
3. At the threshold it was urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that appeal filed by the insurer is not maintainable in view of the fact that it has not deposited the amount of compensation as required under the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Shri Roy for the appellant submitted that at the relevant time there were conflicting views of this court in the matter; one view was that the pre-condition of deposit of money would be applicable only to the employer and not to the insurer and the other view was that the condition precedent provided by law was to be complied with by the party who filed the appeal. He submitted that in view of such divergent opinion no deposit was made. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid difference of opinion continued till it came to be resolved by a Division Bench of this court in Koili Bewa v. Akshaya Kumar Misra, (1994-II-LLJ-71). In view of this position, the preliminary objection raised against the maintainability of the appeal is overruled.
Section 3 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
1