Back
A. ABHISHEK REDDY
Sambodhit – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s): –
“I. To quash/set-aside Order dt. 30.11.2023 (Annexure-P2) passed by the Authorised Officer (Respondent No.3) u/s. 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948 whereby the Respondent has determined 35,16,282/- (Rupees Thirty-five lacs sixteen thousand two hundred and eighty-two only) as arrears of contribution payable by the petitioner with respect to 177 (one hundred and seventy-seven) employees for the period of 40 (forty) months from September, 2018 to December, 2021 and allow the petitioner to present their case before the Authorised Officer and
II. To direct the Respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioner to present their case and then to examine and assess the actual contribution, if any, payable by the petitioner with respect to its 177 (one hundred and seventy-seven) employees for the period of 40 (forty) months from September, 2018 to December, 2021 and
III. To direct the Respondent ESIC to allow the petitioner to operate their CA Bank account bearing CA A/c No. 142010100231671 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited, S.P Verma Road Branch (000142), Patna and IV. To direct the Responde
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting the alternative statutory remedies provided under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 before seeking judicial inte....
Failure to challenge assessment orders under the ESI Act precludes the petitioner from contesting subsequent recovery proceedings, affirming that exclusive statutory remedies must be pursued.
The High Court maintains discretion to entertain writ petitions despite the existence of alternative remedies, underscoring that maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts.
The liability to pay E.S.I. contribution and interest is determined by the effective date of the notification and the adjudication of the actual amount payable.
A PETITIONER WHO HAS DISABLED HIMSELF FROM AVAILING THE STATUTORY REMEDY BY HIS OWN FAULT CANNOT URGE THAT AS A GROUND FOR THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN HIS FAVOUR UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
