Bombay High Court

SHIRISH NAGNATHRAO GITE, PROP. M/S HOTEL ROHIT BAR AND RESTAURANT,NANDEDversusBRANCH MANAGER, E.S.I.C. OFFICE, NANDED AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the court finds no basis to grant a stay of execution or waive the deposit requirement.

Summary

The appellant, M/s Hotel Rohit Bar and Restaurant, filed an application seeking a stay of execution of a demand notice issued by the ESIC Branch Manager, alleging that the establishment had closed and that the notice pertained to a later period. The Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that the appellant had not deposited 50% of the contribution as required under Section 75(2B) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant argued that the proviso to Section 75(2B) allows the authority discretion to waive or reduce the deposit and that the court failed to consider this, also pointing out ambiguities in a letter regarding the closure date. The High Court examined the letter, found it vague and lacking proof of delivery, and noted that even if a waiver were permissible, the appellant had not made out a prima facie case for interim relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the pending civil application was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the proviso to Section 75(2B) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 empowers the authority to waive or reduce the required pre‑deposit of contributions.
Whether the appellant is entitled to a stay of execution of the ESIC demand notice in view of the alleged closure of the establishment.
Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for granting interim relief.

Legislation cited

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 — s. 75(2B), 82

Subjects

Employees' State Insurance Act
Section 75(2B)
waiver of deposit
stay of execution
interim relief
civil application
closure of establishment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41550


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 981 OF 2017

                     Shirish Nagnathrao Gite, Prop. M/s Hotel Rohit Bar And
                                      Restaurant,nanded
                                            VERSUS
                      Branch Manager, E.S.I.C. Office, Nanded And Another
                                               ...
                          Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Hanmant V.
                     Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Anirudha Usmanpurkar
                                               ...
                                             WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8297 OF 2016
                                        IN FA/981/2017
                                               ...

                                CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                Dated      : September 09, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The present appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees'

           State Insurance Act, 1948, being aggrieved by the order dated 17th

           August, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

           Nanded in ESI Petition No. 1 of 2013.



           2.    The appellant had filed an application at Exhibit 5 seeking stay of

           execution and implementation of notice dated 02/11/2012 issued by

           respondent No. 1, Branch Manager, ESIC Office, Nanded.



           3.    The learned Court has rejected the application on the ground

           that the appellant did not deposit 50% of the amount of contribution as

           claimed in the said notice, as contemplated under Section 75(2B) of


                                            Page 1 of 3
                                                          905 WP 981-2017



the ESI Act.



4.    The learned advocate for the appellant contends that the

learned Court completely lost sight of the proviso to Section 75(2B),

which confers a discretion to waive or reduce the amount of deposit

as contemplated under the main provision. He contends that perusal

of the order does not indicate application of mind by the learned

Court in the light of the proviso to Section 75(2B).



5.    As regards merits of the matter, the learned advocate

contends that the establishment of the appellant was already closed,

and the notice of demand was for a subsequent period.



6.    Attention is drawn to letter, where the date is mentioned as

20/03/200—. The precise year is not mentioned in the letter. The

letter does not bear any acknowledgement of delivery to the office of

respondent. There is no material on record to infer delivery of the

said letter to the respondent.



7.    Likewise, perusal of the letter further indicates that specific

date of closure is not mentioned in the letter. It is stated that the

business is closed tentatively 3 to 4 years prior to the date of

issuance of letter. It, therefore, appears that the appellant was not

sure about the tentative period when the business was closed.

                                 Page 2 of 3
                                                               905 WP 981-2017




8.       In the light of the aforesaid, even if the contention of the

appellant that the learned Court should have considered granting

waiver or reduction of amount of pre-deposit is accepted, yet on

facts also, the appellant is unable to make out any prima facie case

for grant of interim relief.



9.       In view of the aforesaid, appeal is dismissed with no order as to

costs. Pending Civil Application No.8297 of 2016 stands disposed of.




                                                 ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                   Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…