M/S Anuj Industries (Wrongly ... vs Ramadhar Bansal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1422 Chatt

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           Order Sheet

                                    W.P.(227) No. 340 of 2021

           M/s Anuj Industries (Wrongly mentioned as Harisharan Poha Mill) Proprietor
                         Vijay Gehani Versus Ramadhar Bansal & Ors.




28/07/2021         Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
                   Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Adv. General for State.
                   Heard on default.
                   Registry has pointed out the default, that the petition should have been
             classified as WPL instead of WP227.
                   Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the impugned order is
             passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Baloda-Bazar(Labour
             Court), dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil
             Procedure of the petitioner, therefore, the challenge in this petition is with respect
             to the procedure adopted by the respondent No.2, therefore, the petition is

maintainable.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, reported in 1984 Supplementary SCC 540 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhagwant Singh v. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and another, in 2013 SCC OnLine C.G. 89.

After considering of the submissions, and on the basis of the case law cited, the default No.2 pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

Time is granted for removing other defaults. List this case after one week.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Nisha