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

2014 Supreme(Bom) 675

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Sanjay Tarakumar Tibdiwala – Appellant
Versus
Jawed – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:D.S. Bharuka, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.S. Shelke, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By an order dated 10/03/2014, the petitioner was directed to file a specific affidavit clearly stating therein whether he intends to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the Compensation Court alongwith interest accrued thereon before this Court. If the petitioner pleads of financial difficulties, he shall submit a list and details of his immovable properties by filing an affidavit to that extent.

3. An affidavit has now been tendered across the bar and a copy thereof is served on the respondent's Advocate. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dated 15/12/2009 in W.C. Application No. 19/2001 has not been challenged by the petitioner and has therefore attained finality.

4. Through the affidavit, the petitioner submits as follows:

(a) He is not liable to pay the compensation.

(b) By an agreement at page No.23 of the affidavit, the petitioner has entered into an understanding on 21/06/2000 with the parents and the respondent herein, who is shown to be 18 years of age on 21/06/2000 where
























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