PARMAR HITESHBHAI MOTIBHAI vs Regional Director Employment State Insurance Corporation Advocate - A.J.RAWAL — 2/2026
Case under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 26. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st May 2026.
MISCAPP ESI - MISC APPLICATION E.S.I.
CNR: GJAH170000432026
Filing Number
2/2026
Filing Date
19-01-2026
Registration No
2/2026
Registration Date
19-01-2026
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
1-PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
01st May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARMAR HITESHBHAI MOTIBHAI
Adv. R.R.JOGI
Respondent(s)
Regional Director Employment State Insurance Corporation Advocate - A.J.RAWAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
REPLY
REPLY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-03-2026 | REPLY |
| 13-03-2026 | REPLY |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Parmar Hiteshbhai Motibhai v. Regional Director ESI Corporation (2/2026) The court granted the petitioner's application to condone a 55-day delay in filing a second appeal against a medical board's disability assessment. The petitioner, injured during employment in March 2024, had sought 20% permanent disability but was awarded only 2%. The court found the case meritorious on substantive grounds and applied the "balance of convenience" doctrine, noting that condonation would serve justice without prejudicing the ESI Corporation, while denying it would unjustly deprive the petitioner of appellate rights on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Parmar Hiteshbhai Motibhai v. Regional Director ESI Corporation (2/2026) The court granted the petitioner's application to condone a 55-day delay in filing a second appeal against a medical board's disability assessment. The petitioner, injured during employment in March 2024, had sought 20% permanent disability but was awarded only 2%. The court found the case meritorious on substantive grounds and applied the "balance of convenience" doctrine, noting that condonation would serve justice without prejudicing the ESI Corporation, while denying it would unjustly deprive the petitioner of appellate rights on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts