Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M/s. Metro Tiles, Represented by its Managing Partners, Mr.Dinesh Babu – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director and Authorised Officer, Sub - Regional Office, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, SRO – Coimbatore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the esi order based on mischaracterization. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. reliance on precedent regarding assessment validity. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation on alternative remedies and legal procedure. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conclusion regarding disposal without entertaining the writ. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
14.08.2025 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act , 1948 and the consequential notice of demand dated 17.12.2025.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner is that when the show cause notice was given, it was not mentioned that the petitioner is a factory, whereas the impugned order proceeds as if the petitioner is a factory. While the fact being that it is only a showroom selling bathware items, the entire contribution is assessed only on presumption and assumption and not even any prima facie material is there.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of this Court inEmployees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. M/s.Drilcos (India) Private Limited, (CMA No.1676 of 2018) to contend that when the en
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
