SHRI.DILIP KUMAR RAMDAS RASTOGI vs MR.RADHYESHAM ROOPNARAYAN JAISWAL AND ANR. — FA/1199/2017

Case under Workmens Compensation Act Section 30. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM010283502017

Filing Number

FA/18438/2017

Filing Date

28-Jun-2017

Registration No

FA/1199/2017

Registration Date

26-Oct-2017

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

FIRST APPEAL ( 53 )

Sub-Category

Other Appeals - Single Bench ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Workmens Compensation Act Section 30

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI.DILIP KUMAR RAMDAS RASTOGI

    Adv. TJMENDON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR.RADHYESHAM ROOPNARAYAN JAISWAL AND ANR.

  2. 2.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

    Case Summary: FA/1199/2017 The Bombay High Court admitted the first appeal on the substantial question of law regarding whether the Commissioner's finding that the appellant failed to prove an employer-employee relationship and was thus ineligible for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act was perverse. The court issued notice to respondents and directed the appellant to file a compiled paper-book within six months, with the appeal to be heard thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Dec-2020

    For Orders [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre

  4. 20-Nov-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R.D. DhanukaView PDF

  5. 20-Nov-2019

    Appeals For Admission - Fresh [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka

  6. 25-Apr-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. TatedView PDF

  7. 25-Apr-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 28-Jun-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/1199/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: FA/1199/2017 The Bombay High Court admitted the first appeal on the substantial question of law regarding whether the Commissioner's finding that the appellant failed to prove an employer-employee relationship and was thus ineligible for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act was perverse. The court issued notice to respondents and directed the appellant to file a compiled paper-book within six months, with the appeal to be heard thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case