IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2160 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL/1103/2024 =============================================

M/S MOORTHI ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH ITS PROP.

KAMBALA SIKHAGRA MOORTHI Versus TULSI HARJI MAHESHWARI SINCH & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR AMAN A SAMA(11691) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Opponent(s) No. 2 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 3 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 13/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application seeking review / recall of the judgment and order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1103 of 2024 has been preferred by the applicant – original appellant under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the applicant had submitted that the present review is filed on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It was submitted that despite a valid insurance policy in existence covering the entire liability of the applicant employer under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the Court has erroneously held the applicant liable to pay such amount apart from the amount of compensation. The Court has failed to consider the insurance policy produced on record at mark 4/4 by the applicant, wherein on bare appreciation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid policy, against the column of exclusion, it is clearly mentioned "not applicable". According to him, the aforesaid term clearly indicates that the policy does not exclude the liability of interest or penalty. However, this Court has overlooked the aforesaid vital documents on record and has erroneously fixed liability of the applicant company to bear the interest and the penalty. Secondly, learned advocate has also raised grievance about the reliance being made on the supplementary terms and conditions which were later on produced by the respondent -Insurance Company during the course of final hearing of the First Appeal. It was submitted that the supplementary terms and conditions of the policy were not brought on record before the learned Commissioner and were first time produced at the fag end of the proceedings. Despite objections being raised by the applicant, this Court had entertained such production of supplementary documents on record without affording any opportunity of hearing to meet with the said document. Even otherwise, on bare appreciation of the aforesaid supplementary terms and conditions of the policy, it transpires that the same are part of insurance policy issued by the respondent-Insurance Company in the case of a third-party insurer and not in the case of the applicant insurer. He has therefore submitted that in absence of any proof of the supplementary terms and conditions forming part of the insurance policy in the case of the applicant employee, this Court ought not to have taken into consideration such document. He therefore submitted that the Court has committed serious error apparent on face of the record which calls for review of this order. In such circumstances, this Court ought to have held the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount towards interest and penalty as well. Alternatively, the learned advocate had submitted to remand the proceedings back to the learned Commissioner for the limited purpose of re-examination of the issue of liability of interest and penalty. He has therefore submitted to recall the judgment and to re-examine the matter afresh on merits by restoring the First Appeal to its original file.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia appearing on behalf of the opponent No.2 Insurance Company, had vehemently objecte