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
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
AT 2.30 P.M.
DUE ADMISSION -
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2023 | AT 2.30 P.M. |
| 26-06-2023 | DUE ADMISSION - |
| 09-06-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
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.
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