SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Kar) 45

CHIDANANDA ULLAL
LOORDSWAMY – Appellant
Versus
COURT, BANGALORE – Respondent


Advocates:
H.Mangalamba Rao, V.Narasimha Holla

ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is presented by the workman covered under Employees' state Insurance Act to challenge the order dated 7. 10. 1997 in E. S. I. Application No. 66 of 1995 passed by the E. I. Court. In passing the said order, the E. I. Court had rejected the application of the appellant herein on the ground that there was delay of a day in presenting the application.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is represented by Mrs. H. Mangalamba Rao, whereas the contesting respondent No. 2, E. S. I. Corporation is represented by Mr. V. Narasimha.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant had taken me through the impugned order. According to her, the E. I. Court had erred in law, inasmuch as it had held erroneously that the application in question was not presented within 3 months from the date of communication of the order, for according to her, admittedly, the communication by the Medical Board was on 19. 9. 95 and as such, a period of 3 months came to an end on 19. 12. 1995. Therefore, she submitted that the application presented by the appellant on 19. 12. 1995 was well in time and as such, the E. I. Court would not have rejected the application of the appellant on the point of delay















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top