M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - Uttara Sawant — 73/2023
Case under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 75/76. Status: Hearing below Exh._______. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
Application ESI
CNR: MHIC010018432023
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
Filing Number
1871/2023
Filing Date
28-12-2023
Registration No
73/2023
Registration Date
29-12-2023
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
2-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd
Adv. H.D. Pithadia
Respondent(s)
The Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - Uttara Sawant
Shri G. Gangte , The Deputy Director
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Member
Hearing below Exh._______
Hearing below Exh._______
Hearing below Exh._______
Hearing below Exh._______
Hearing below Exh._______
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
| 03-02-2026 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
| 06-01-2026 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
| 04-11-2025 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
| 07-10-2025 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
Interim Orders
Summary: The ESI Court at Mumbai granted interim relief to M/s. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. on April 15, 2024. The court stayed the Section 45-A order dated August 8, 2022, which determined ESI contribution of Rs. 74,81,718/- for FY 2017-2018, and restrained the ESIC from initiating recovery proceedings pending final disposal of the main application. The court found that the applicant established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the applicant, and irreparable loss would result without the interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The ESI Court at Mumbai granted interim relief to M/s. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. on April 15, 2024. The court stayed the Section 45-A order dated August 8, 2022, which determined ESI contribution of Rs. 74,81,718/- for FY 2017-2018, and restrained the ESIC from initiating recovery proceedings pending final disposal of the main application. The court found that the applicant established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the applicant, and irreparable loss would result without the interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts