SADANAND SHEENA BANGERA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAI ART PRINTERS vs THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION — IA/2338/2022

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 96. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010352592021

Filing Number

IA/19378/2021

Filing Date

08-Oct-2021

Registration No

IA/2338/2022

Registration Date

08-Apr-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 05-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SADANAND SHEENA BANGERA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAI ART PRINTERS

    Adv. Adv. Manan Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

  2. 2.THE RECOVERY OFFICER , EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's ESI Act appeal, finding no substantial question of law was raised. The court upheld the ESI Court's factual findings that the appellant failed to prove it employed fewer than 10 workers during July 2009-2013, failed to maintain records, and did not comply with ESI notices or seek registration cancellation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    For Dismissal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

  5. 08-Oct-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/2338/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's ESI Act appeal, finding no substantial question of law was raised. The court upheld the ESI Court's factual findings that the appellant failed to prove it employed fewer than 10 workers during July 2009-2013, failed to maintain records, and did not comply with ESI notices or seek registration cancellation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case