RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI vs MOHD. IQBAL SYED NABI AND ANR. — HCBM10485832022

Case under Workmens Compensation Act Section 30. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010485832022

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

FA/28745/2022

Filing Date

21-11-2022

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

Acts & Sections

Workmens Compensation Act Section 30

Petitioner(s)

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

Adv. KALPANA TRIVEDI

Respondent(s)

MOHD. IQBAL SYED NABI AND ANR.

SULEMAN KHAN

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

18-04-2023

AT 2.30 P.M.

26-06-2023

DUE ADMISSION -

09-06-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

07-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Case Summary The Bombay High Court allowed Reliance General Insurance Company's interim application and stayed the operation of the impugned order pending appeal disposal, after the company deposited the required amount with the Commissioner for Workmen. However, the court dismissed the company's substantive appeal under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, finding that its proposed questions regarding whether the policy was fake and whether a non-treating doctor's disability certificate was valid constituted questions of fact, not substantial questions of law required for appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Bombay High Court allowed Reliance General Insurance Company's interim application and stayed the operation of the impugned order pending appeal disposal, after the company deposited the required amount with the Commissioner for Workmen. However, the court dismissed the company's substantive appeal under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, finding that its proposed questions regarding whether the policy was fake and whether a non-treating doctor's disability certificate was valid constituted questions of fact, not substantial questions of law required for appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case