Bombay High Court
Jiyalal Rajaram Yadav And Ors. vs M/S Agrawal Roadlines (P) Ltd. Through ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Modak
Bench: S.M.Modak
2025:BHC-AS:48954 FA-210-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.210 OF 2023
1. Mr.Jiyalal Rajaram Yadav,
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA Age : 47 Years, Occupation : Nil,
SANGAR
[Son of original Appellant Mr.Rajaram
Digitally signed by
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
Butairam Yadav].
SANGAR
Date: 2025.11.14
18:29:17 +0530 2. Mr.Lav Rajaram Yadav,
Age : 27 Years, Occupation : Service,
[Son of original Appellant Mr.Rajaram
Butairam Yadav].
3. Mr.Kush Rajaram Yadav,
Age : 27 Years, Occupation : Service,
[Son of original Appellant Mr.Rajaram
Butairam Yadav].
All are residing at : Manshapur, Kharaghpur,
Ozh. Sant Ravidas Nagar, Dist. : Gyanpur, ...Appellants
Uttar Pradesh State. (Ori. Applicants)
Versus
1. M/s. Agrawal Roadlines (P) Ltd.
Through its Director :-
Shri.Satyanarayan Agarwal,
Old Address of Respondent No.1:-
Agrawal House, Plot No.356, Gokul
Park, Sector 12B, Gandhidham, Gujrat. ...Respondent No.1
[Owner of Motor Tanker No.GJ-12-Z-1926]. ...(Ori.Opp.No.1)
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
Old address of Respondent No.2:-
Thane Divisional Manager at Pinak Galaxy,
Kapurbawdi, Near Mahadev Hotel,
Opposite Big Bazar, Thane (West),
PIN : 400067.
New Address of Respondent No.2:-
Motor Third Party Claims HUB,
Satish Sangar 1/22
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:49 :::
FA-210-2023.doc
At 5th Floor, Union Co-operative Insurance
Building, Mr.P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai, ...Respondent No.2
PIN : 400001. (Original Insurer)
===================================================
Mr.T.J.Mendon i/b.Smt.Rina Kundu:- Advocates for Appellants
(Original Applicants).
Ms.Varsha Chavan a/w Ms.Namrata Advocate for Respondent
Gawde:- No.2 (Original Insurer).
*****
CORAM : S.M.MODAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 13th OCTOBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The vehicular accident took place at Vadodara - Gujarat. The
office of employer is situated at Gandhidham - Gujarat. The insurance
policy was issued at Ahmedabad and they are having branch office at
Thane. The original Claimant was residing at Thane at the time of
filing of Application (but no documents were filed). During pendency
of Claim Application, he shifted to Uttar Pradesh and died there. His
dependants are residing there. On these facts, learned Commissioner,
Thane dismissed the Application on 9th November 2019 for want of
'territorial jurisdiction'. That is why, the Appeal is filed by the
dependants. So, the issue involved in this Appeal is " dismissal of such
Application for want of territorial jurisdiction whether can be a
FA-210-2023.doc
substantial question of law" and if yes "what can be the order"?
2. When this Appeal was admitted on 28th March 2023, any
substantial question of law was not framed. On this background, I have
heard learned Advocate Shri.T.J.Mendon for the Appellants/Original
Claimant Nos.1 to 3 and learned Advocate Ms.Varsha Chavan for
Respondent No.2/Original Insurer. The Respondent No.1 is the
employer/Insured. The Original Claimant-Rajaram Yadav was the
employee of Respondent No.1. He was a driver by profession. The
Respondent No.1 runs a business of transport in the name and style as
"M/s.Agrawal Roadlines (P) Ltd." They have obtained an insurance
policy (Vehicle Package Policy) from the Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
Pleadings
3. The deceased Rajaram was injured in an accident that took place
on 2nd January 2011 at Vadodara (Gujarat). He was driving a tanker
and it turned turtle and he sustained fracture. He was paraplegic. He
sought compensation for injuries. The accident took place on 2 nd
January 2011 but Application was not filed in time. It was filed on 4 th
September 2013.
4. The Respondent No.1/Employer filed the Written Statement.
FA-210-2023.doc
They have admitted the employment and the accident. According to
them, the responsibility to pay compensation is on the Insurance
Company. However, they have challenged the 'territorial jurisdiction'
of the Court of Labour Commissioner at Thane. Whereas, the
Respondent No.2 has denied everything but not challenged the
'territorial jurisdiction' of Thane Court.
Evidence
5. The Claimant-Rajaram Yadav gave evidence and examined three
witnesses. The employer gave evidence through their Representative
Mitesh S. Joshi. The Insurance Company has not given any evidence.
They have restricted themselves in conducting cross-examination.
Findings
6. Learned Commissioner framed four issues. All the issues are
answered in favour of the Claimant except the issue of 'territorial
jurisdiction'. And that is how, the Application was dismissed as per the
judgment dated 9th November 2019. During pendency of the
Application, there was one development. The injured Rajaram expired
on 28th June 2018. His Legal Representatives were brought on record.
They are nothing but the present Appellants.
7. During the arguments, Ms.Varsha Chavan supported the findings
FA-210-2023.doc
on the issue of 'lack of territorial jurisdiction'. Whereas, according to
Mr.Mendon, such objection cannot be entertained for two reasons.
They are:-
(i) Such objection was not taken while hearing the delay
condonation Application.
(ii) The Insurance Company in their Written Statement has not
taken this objection, and hence, they have waived it.
According to Mr.Mendon, the findings on the aspect of 'territorial
jurisdiction' are erroneous. During their oral arguments, they have
elaborated which are the points which can be / cannot be the
'substantial question of law' and hence, I am framing them as below:-
(a) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the
Application by holding that it has no 'territorial
jurisdiction'?
(b) Whether dismissing the Application for 'territorial
jurisdiction' can be a 'substantial question of law''?
(c) Whether the impugned judgment requires interference?
(d) If yes, what order?
-: R E A S O N S :-
-: Question No.(b) :-
8. The phrase 'substantial question of law' is used in various
statutes. If a particular piece of evidence is not considered or is
considered by overlooking the provisions of relevant law, it is said, the
FA-210-2023.doc
findings are perverse and in that case, 'substantial question of law' is
involved.
9. There is serious dispute amongst both of them about
involvement of 'substantial question of law'. Ms.Varsha Chavan relied
upon the observations in case of Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. V/s.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr .1 and observations made in
paragraph Nos.17 to 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
the importance of framing of 'substantial question of law' and then
only there can be interference in the judgment. On facts of that case,
the Supreme Court observed:-
"There has to be perversity in the findings and there cannot be
an interference just because another view is possible "
(paragraph No.25).
Whereas according to Mr.Mendon, learned Commissioner has
overlooked the fact that the Insurance Company was having branch
office at Thane. He places reliance on the provisions of Section 21 of
the said Act.
Consideration
10. There is difference in between 'question of fact' and 'substantial
question of law'. If the issue is "whether the evidence of Claimant on
1 AIR 2023 SC 4438
FA-210-2023.doc
the point of accident is to be believed or not " is a 'question of fact'.
"Whether the evidence of Claimant corroborates documentary
evidence or not" is a 'question of fact'.
11. Similarly, in this Appeal, when the Claimant contends, he was
residing at Thane and during hearing of the Application, he shifted to
Uttar Pradesh and Commissioner gives negative findings, "whether
these facts fall within the domain ordinary residence " is certainly a
question of law and a substantial question of law. And if documents to
substantiate place of residence are filed and the issue is "whether they
are proved or not" is a 'question of fact'.
12. Similarly "when the insurer is having branch office at Thane " is a
'question of fact'. However, the issue is whether "these facts fulfill
requirements of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the EC
Act", is certainly a 'question of law' and a 'substantial question of law'.
Because, it touches the aspect of 'territorial jurisdiction'.
13. In case of Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav (cited supra), earlier there
were findings that relationship was proved. It was set aside by the High
Court. That is why the Supreme Court dwelt upon the issue of
interference under Section 30 of the said Act. As said above, in this
Appeal, there is scope for hearing about correctness of finding on the
FA-210-2023.doc
issue of 'substantial question of law'. I reject the contention of
Ms.Varsha Chavan representing the Insurance Company. Even though
the Insurance Company has not taken plea of ' territorial jurisdiction',
they are entitled to take that plea in Appeal. Because, they have every
right to support those findings and hence, they are entitled to raise all
the pleas. I reject the contention of Mr.Mendon.
-: Question Nos.(a) (c) and (d) :-
14. The evidence need to be considered. From the evidence of
Claimant Rajaram and evidence of employer's representative, following
facts emerges:-
(i) While filing delay condonation Application and Claim
Application, the Claimant Rajaram has given his address at
Thane. (within territorial jurisdiction of Thane Court).
(ii) When the Claimant Rajaram gave evidence, he gave his
address at Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) When his Legal Representatives filed an Application for
bringing their names on record, they gave their address at
Uttar Pradesh.
(iv) The accident took place at Vadodara (Gujarat).
(v) The place of office of the employer is at Gandhidham at
Gujarat.
(vi) Policy was issued by the Insurance Company at Ahmedabad.
(vii) Branch office of the Insurance Company is situated at Thane.
FA-210-2023.doc
15. Apart from above circumstances, Ms.Varsha Chavan invited my
attention to the following circumstances:-
(a) Averment by Rajaram that he has no relative at Gujarat and
hence, he was shifted to the Uttar Pradesh (paragraph No.3).
Initially, he was admitted in the hospital in Gujarat.
(b) Rajaram admits that he is a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
(c) The averment in the Affidavit by the Representative of the
employer that "Rajaram has mentioned the Thane address
on ill advise."
(d) Admission in the cross-examination by Representative that
"Rajaram does not reside in Thane", and admission given
that the employer is not having office in Thane.
Findings by Commissioner
16. Relevant findings are there in paragraph No.8 to paragraph
No.10. The reasons are as follows:-
(a) The employer by way of separate Application has challenged
the 'territorial jurisdiction'.
(b) The Commissioner considered the native place of Rajaram
at Uttar Pradesh. The place of accident and office of
employer both are at Gujarat.
(c) Rajaram has not filed any documentary evidence to show his
residential address at Thane.
(d) In the cover-note, the address is at Gandhidham.
FA-210-2023.doc
Submissions
17. Mr.Mendon relied upon the provisions of Section 21 of the said
Act. After reading the same, following are the decisive factors for
deciding 'territorial jurisdiction':-
(a) Place of accident
(b) Place of residence of the employee or his dependants.
(c) Place of registered office of employer.
According to Ms.Chavan, the Claimant does not satisfy any of the
contingencies under any of the clauses under Section 21(1) of the said
Act. Ms.Chavan has laid much emphasis on difference in between the
scheme of EC Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act",
henceforth). Section 166(2) of the MV Act talks of 'territorial
jurisdiction'. The following are the relevant factors:-
(a) The place of accident.
(b) Place of residence of Claimant or place of business of
Claimant. (Place of business of Claimant has no significance
when employee asks for compensation as per EC Act).
(c) Place of residence of the defendant. (Here place of business
of defendant / insurance company is not provided).
18. If above both provisions are considered together, we can infer
about intention of the legislature in enacting those provisions. On
comparative analysis, following principles emerge:-
FA-210-2023.doc
(a) Under both the Acts, place of accident is a common factor
which decides the 'territorial jurisdiction'.
(b) There is a difference in between above provisions when place
of residence of claimant / defendant is one of the
considerations.
(c) As per the provisions of EC Act, there is emphasis on place
of residence of Claimant and there is no reference of place of
his business. It is but natural. Because place of business of
employee has no significance.
(d) Whereas, the factor of place of registered office of employer
has got significance under EC Act whereas it is not
specifically provided as per the MV Act.
(e) Place of residence of employer has no relevance as per the
EC Act. It is but natural. Whereas, place of residence of
defendant has relevance as per the MV Act.
19. On this background, the findings need to be tested from two
viewpoints.
(a) While drafting the Claim Application, place of residence of
Claimant is mentioned at Thane whether is of paramount
consideration (but not filed any document).
(b) Admittedly, at a subsequent stage, the Claimant has shifted
to Uttar Pradesh and his dependants too.
(c) Whether branch office of the Insurance Company at Thane
is of paramount consideration?
Judgments cited by both the sides
20. Mr.Mendon relied upon the following judgments:-
FA-210-2023.doc
(i) Firozkhan Kallukhan Pathan V/s. Dimpal Kumar Shah and
another2
(ii) Balveer Batra V/s. New India Assurance Company and
Another.3
(iii) Malati Sardar V/s. National Insurance Company Limited
and Others.4
(iv) Mantoo Sarkar V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and Others.5
(v) Ved Prakash Garg V/s. Premi Devi and others6
(vi) Iqbal Shamsuddin Ansari V/s. Gazi Salauddin Ansari and
another.7
(vii) Mahendra Rai V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another.8
(viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Prembai Patel and others 9'
(ix) Nirmala Devi V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others10
21. Ms.Varsha Chavan relied upon following judgments:-
(i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai
Modhiya and Anr.11
(ii) Fulmati Dhramdevi Yadav & Anr. V/s. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.12
2 2019 ACJ 1870
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4072
4 (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 43
5 (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244
6 1998 ACJ 1
7 1980 LabIC 125
8 2015 ACJ 2663
9 2005 ACJ 1323
10 2025 ACJ 1490
11 AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1926
12 Civil Appeal No.4713 of 2023 : 4th September 2023 : Supreme Court of India
FA-210-2023.doc
22. While supporting the findings, Ms.Chavan laid emphasis on the
scheme of MV Act and the scheme of EC Act. In fact, the Insurance
Company has not raised a point of their misjoinder before the
Commissioner. It is true, as per the provisions of Section 170 of MV
Act, in certain contingencies, the Insurance Company can be
impleaded and they have got a right to contest the Claim Petition.
Whereas, Mr.Mendon relied upon the provisions of Section 146 and
Section 147 of MV Act. There is a necessity for obtaining the insurance
policy so that the risk arising out of damages to third party can be
covered. Whereas Section 147 deals with requirement of policies and
limits of liability. Mr.Mendon laid emphasis on proviso to Sub-section
(1) to Section 147 of the said Act. If there is a death or injury to an
employee due to the employment, policy need not cover such risk.
There is an exception to this proviso if the liability is arising out of WC
Act, then policy must cover such risk. In other words, legislature
recognises the contingency covered as per WC Act and contingency
other than that. There is an option to cover second contingency.
However, in a former contingency, policy is required.
23. Mr.Mendon invited my attention to the vehicle package policy in
the name of employer. Risk for employees under WC Act is covered
FA-210-2023.doc
and premium is also charged.
24. It is true there is no Section in EC Act similar to Section 170 of
MV Act. But when an employer pays a premium for an employee and
if an accident took place during the course of employment, certainly
the Claimant is entitled to implead the insurer. And it is on the basis of
contractual liability.
25. Mr.Mendon also relied upon the provisions of Section 19 of the
EC Act. He also places reliance on the observations in case of Iqbal
Shamsuddin Ansari V/s. Gazi Salauddin Ansari and another 13. When
special category of employees are covered as per Section 95 of old MV
Act, there is a legislative intent to make provisions of Sections 95 and
96 of old MV Act being part of WC Act. The liability of insurer is
integrally connected to the primary liability of employer and hence, the
Commissioner is having exclusive jurisdiction to determine such
liability. Similar is the ratio in case of Mahendra Rai (supra).
26. When the accident took place and vehicle is involved, it is the
provisions of MV Act which are applicable. Whereas, in a Petition
under EC Act, the relationship is that of employer and employee. The
accident may involve a vehicle or may not involve a vehicle. If an
employee sustains an injury during the course of employment and also
13 A.F.O.D.No.7 of 1971 : 4th April 1979, Bombay High Court
FA-210-2023.doc
involving a vehicle, he has got an option either to move under the MV
Act or under the EC Act.
27. Ms.Varsha Chavan relied upon the observations in case of
Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Anr . (cited supra). It is true,
there is elaboration on necessity of obtaining an insurance under the
Motor Vehicles Act. When the policy is obtained, the liability of
insurer is governed as per the provisions of Section 147 of MV Act and
there remains nothing for the insurer to decide terms of insurance
policy. It has to be decided within parameters of Section 147 of the said
Act. Whereas as per EC Act, the statutory liability rests on an employer
and insurer's liability is just contractual. As per contract, the employer
and insurer may decide terms of liability. I can agree to this much
submission of Ms.Chavan. In case of Prembai Patel and others (supra),
there was a Petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and on evidence,
it was a case of mechanical failure. The insurer was held liable for all
sort of liability. It was restricted only to liability under EC Act.
28. But once there is a policy issued by the insurer covering the risk
of employees under the Employees Compensation Act, it is sort of
contract and insurer cannot deny liability by relying on difference in
between provisions of MV Act and EC Act.
FA-210-2023.doc
Judgments on 'territorial jurisdiction'
29. Any observations in a judgment is a ratio on the basis of facts and
law involved. A slightest variation in facts can lead to different
outcome. As said above, scope of an adjudication under MV Act wide
as compared to an adjudication under EC Act. It is the relationship of
'employer and employee' which is necessary for involving the
provisions of EC Act.
30. Whereas as per MV Act, the relationship may be of an 'employer
and employee' and may also cover other cases also. What is important,
there must be vehicular accident. The legislatures have drafted the
provisions of Section 19 of EC Act and Section 166 of MV Act
according to the object which they want to achieve. That is why,
employee's place of business has no significance. On two aspects, the
provisions of EC Act relating to 'territorial jurisdiction' are different
from the provisions of MV Act. The phrase used under clause (b) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of EC Act is 'ordinary residence' whereas
it is only place of residence / office under Section 166 of MV Act.
Secondly, clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of EC Act uses the
word 'registered office'. Whereas under Section 166, there is reference
of only place of residence of defendant.
FA-210-2023.doc
31. The judgments in case of Morgina Begum, Firozkhan Kallukhan
Pathan, Ved Prakash Garg (cited supra) deal with the provisions of EC
Act. Whereas the judgments in case of Balveer Batra, Malati Sardar,
Mantoo Sarkar, Arvinder Walia (cited supra) deal with the provisions
of MV Act.
32. In case of Morgina Begum (supra), the accident and place of
residence at the time of accident was outside the territorial limits of
Tejpur Court. The only cause of action within the limits of Tejpur
Court was place of residence of parents at the time of filing of Claim
Petition. The Supreme Court also negated the contention about
necessity of documents to prove residence.
33. In case of Firozkhan Kallukhan Pathan (supra), the High Court
remanded the matter. Place of residence was at Latur whereas accident
took place at Pune.
34. An Insurance Company was having office within Gurugram. The
MACT Tribunal was having jurisdiction to entertain the Claim
Application. It was in case of Nirmala Devi (supra).
35. It is true place of residence of defendant is the relevant parameter
as per Section 166(2) of MV Act. Court should not take hyper
technical approach. Whereas in case of Balveer Batra (supra), the
FA-210-2023.doc
Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the test of 'failure of justice' as
contemplated under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
("CPC"). In that case, the claimant as well as two opponents were not
residing within the territorial limits. Only the Insurance Company was
having an office within the territorial limits. Here also, there is an
emphasis on not taking hyper technical approach.
36. In case of Malati Sardar (supra), the MACT Calcutta was held to
be the proper Tribunal because place of business was situated at
Calcutta whereas place of accident and place of residence of Claimant
was outside territorial limits of Calcutta. Here also, the test of 'failure of
justice' was applied (paragraph No.14).
37. Whereas in the case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the Claimant was
original resident of Pilbhit and the Claimant was residing at Nainital at
the time of accident. A Claim was filed before Tribunal at Nainital.
There was a branch office of the Insurance Company at Nainital. Here
also, the test of 'failure of justice' under Section 21 of CPC was
invoked.
Consideration
38. No doubt, neither the Claimant nor his dependants have filed
documentary evidence to prove their place of residence at Thane. It is
FA-210-2023.doc
also not required as held in the case of Morgina Begum (supra). In the
Claim Petition, the Claimant has written his address at Thane.
Throughout the evidence, he says that he is a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
Even he took treatment at Uttar Pradesh. As per Section 21(1)(b),
there is emphasis on 'ordinary residence' as compared to permanent
residence. 'Ordinary' means generally. It does not contemplate stay
with the intention to stay permanently at a particular place while doing
business at that place. Place of business of Claimant had no significance
when Claim Application was filed. Court has to satisfy itself that it has
the 'territorial jurisdiction'. Address mentioned was Thane, so the
Commissioner was justified in admitting the Application.
39. The employer appeared and he challenged 'territorial
jurisdiction'. At the time of giving of evidence, the Claimant had
shifted to Uttar Pradesh. The position in existence at the time of filing
of an Application is important. At the same time, subsequent
development also needs to be considered.
40. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company though not
having registered office but is having a branch office at Thane, that is
to say, was doing business at Thane. In Section 21(1)(c), there is an
emphasis on registered office of employer. Admittedly, the office of
FA-210-2023.doc
employer is not at Thane. There is no reference of office of Insurance
Company or place of their business in the Section. Even in Section
166(2) of MV Act, there is only reference of place of residence of
defendant and there is no reference of place of business of defendant.
41. Now on this background, whether the Claim Application can be
rejected on account of reliance placed on place of branch office of the
Insurance Company. As per provisions of EC Act, joining Insurance
Company is not mandatory. The liability on the basis of insurance
policy is a contractual liability. The employer may obtain a policy or
may not. Probably, that is why the legislatures have not made a
reference of place of office of Insurance Company in Section 21 of the
EC Act. On this background, if we consider the principles about
'territorial jurisdiction' laid down in CPC, certainly place of business of
defendant is one of the consideration and if there are more than one
defendants, place of business of one of the defendants is also
determining factor for deciding the 'territorial jurisdiction'.
42. This is not the case of territorial jurisdiction which strictly falls
under one of 3 clauses of Section 21 of the EC Act. Partly it falls under
first clause and under 3rd clause. This Court has accepted this
interpretation for the purpose of achieving object of the Act. That is
FA-210-2023.doc
what is said in some of the judgments (though under MV Act) that is
hyper technical approach should be avoided. Plea of 'territorial
jurisdiction' does not touch the root of the matter.
43. For the above reasoning, it cannot be said that the learned
Commissioner has applied the law correctly to the facts of the case.
Court has to interpret the law so that object of the Act can be achieved.
When there is a contract of insurance, the insurer indemnifies the
insured and he falls in the shoes of insured for the contractual liability.
The findings on the issue of 'territorial jurisdiction' need to be set
aside. The matter needs to be remanded back for hearing on remaining
points. Hence the order:-
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(b) The judgment dated 9th November 2019 passed by the
learned Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and
Judge, First Labour Court, Thane in Application (ECA)
No.224/C-46/2014 is set aside.
(c) Matter is remanded back to the Court of learned
Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Judge,
First Labour Court, Thane for hearing on following points:-
(i) To hear the parties on the aspect of calculation of
compensation and the liability of insurer and insured.
FA-210-2023.doc
(ii) Rest of the findings given by the Commissioner are not
interfered with.
(iii) The Commissioner to hear the parties on the basis of
available evidence.
(d) Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on
23rd November 2025.
(e) The Commissioner to decide the matter finally within 3
months from 23rd November 2025.
44. With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
