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.

Next hearing 09-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010485832022

Filing Number

FA/28745/2022

Filing Date

21-Nov-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

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Workmens Compensation Act Section 30

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

    Adv. KALPANA TRIVEDI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHD. IQBAL SYED NABI AND ANR.

  2. 2.SULEMAN KHAN

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

  3. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

    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.

  4. 26-Jun-2023

    Due Admission -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige

  5. 18-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Nov-2022

    Case filed

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case