9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Emergency Risks (Factories Insurance) Act, 1962 and Scheme. 2. Valuation method for determining premium evasion. 3. Timeliness of filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act. 4. Power of quasi-judicial authority to condone delay. 5. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in quasi-judicial proceedings. Analysis: 1. The case involved a public limited company engaged in manufacturing various products and owning factories in Bihar. The company was required to obtain insurance policies under the Emergency Risks (Factories Insurance) Act, 1962 and the corresponding Scheme. Disputes arose regarding the valuation method used by the Directorate to determine premium evasion, leading to a demand for payment of a specific amount by the company. 2. The petitioner challenged the orders of respondent authorities, primarily contesting the depreciation calculation method and asserting that there was no premium evasion due to adequate insurance coverage. Additionally, the timeliness of filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was questioned, as the appeal was rejected as time-barred by respondent 1. 3. The legal counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent 1 should have considered condoning the delay in filing the appeal and deciding on the merits of the case. The respondent's failure to exercise the power to condone the delay was highlighted as unreasonable and against the law. 4. The court discussed the power of quasi-judicial authorities to condone delays, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that unless expressly excluded, Section 5 can be invoked to extend the period of limitation in special or local laws. It was noted that the present Act did not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5, indicating that respondent 1 erred in disallowing the condonation of delay. 5. The judgment concluded by setting aside the order of respondent 1, directing a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits after affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The court emphasized the need for a prompt resolution of the appeal and granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed amount until the final disposal of the case, without imposing any costs on either party.
|
