Gini and Jony Ltd vs Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - Uttara Sawant — 6/2026

Case under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 75(2B). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.

Hearing Next hearing 08-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Misc. Appln. ESI..EX - Misc. Appln. ESI.EX

CNR: MHIC010000462026

Filing Number

46/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

6/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

3-Member

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 75(2B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gini and Jony Ltd

    Adv. P.M.Bhagat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - Uttara Sawant

  2. 2.The Recovery Officer, ESIC

Case History

  1. 08-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order below Exh---View PDF

    Summary: The Insurance Court at Mumbai granted ad-interim relief to Gini and Jony Ltd. in their challenge against Employees State Insurance Corp.'s orders under sections 45A and 45G. The court stayed both orders until the next hearing date, defreezed the applicant's bank account, and prohibited the opponents from taking any coercive action, accepting the applicant's contention that the ESI orders were ex-parte and the contribution period covered the Covid-19 lockdown when operations were closed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Member

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Argument

    Member

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Member

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Member

  7. 21-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Insurance Court at Mumbai granted ad-interim relief to Gini and Jony Ltd. in their challenge against Employees State Insurance Corp.'s orders under sections 45A and 45G. The court stayed both orders until the next hearing date, defreezed the applicant's bank account, and prohibited the opponents from taking any coercive action, accepting the applicant's contention that the ESI orders were ex-parte and the contribution period covered the Covid-19 lockdown when operations were closed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case