Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
M/s.LIV Medica Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – Respondent
W.P.No.15305 of 2026 | WP No.14062 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Gopalan, Senior Counsel, G.Babu Rajendran
For the Respondents: Dr.C.Paranthaman

Existence of alternative statutory remedy warrants dismissal of writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Headnote:The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and for a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders after granting opportunity. The petitioner, an establishment registered under the Act, challenged the order claiming non-payment of ESI contributions amounting to Rs.7,39,326/-. The respondent contended that an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the Appellate Authority. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demand amount within twelve weeks and to file an appeal thereafter within two weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, with respondents restrained from taking coercive steps until final disposal. The court identified the key issue as whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. It held that when an alternative remedy exists, the court would normally not interfere. The court observed that the petitioner must exhaust the appellate remedy after making a partial deposit, thereby balancing the interests of revenue collection and the petitioner's right to challenge. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to deposit 25% of the demand and to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within specified timelines, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenged esi contribution demand under alternative statutory remedy. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on natural justice violation and availability of appellate remedy. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court directs deposit and appeal for balancing revenue and party rights. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 28.12.2015 under Section 45-1 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 alleging non- payment of contributions by the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is an establishment registered under the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948. Alleging non-payment of ESI Contributions, the 1^st respondent had passed an order under Section 45-A of the Act as against the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.7,39,326/- as contribution. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the impugned order was passed as early as in 2015, the same was communicated to the petitioner only in 2026 which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, as against the order impugned herein, there is an effective remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. Without exhausting the said remedy, filing Writ Petition before this Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the fact that, there is an alternate statutory remedy of appeal as against the order impugned herein, this Court without interfering with the impugned order, directs the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demand amount within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the petitioner shall, along with proof of such payment, file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter and on receipt of the same, the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till the final disposal of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM. Dhandapani, JM/s.LIV Medica Products Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusTHE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – RespondentW.P.No.15305 of 2026 | WP No.14062 of 2026

Existence of alternative statutory remedy warrants dismissal of writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
M/s.LIV Medica Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – Respondent
W.P.No.15305 of 2026 | WP No.14062 of 2026