Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Umashankar vs Collector

High Court Of Gujarat|16 June, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
Dave, learned advocate, has submitted that after adjudication, learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation Act has decided the matter and order awarding compensation has been passed in favour of the petitioner.
Since the amount was not recovered, application before the learned Commissioner was filed and the learned Commissioner has, after considering the facts and circumstances, issued Recovery Certificate.
Mr.
Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the recovery certificate came to be issued in January-2009 and although three years have passed, the respondents have not taken any steps to recover the amount. He also submitted that several requests and reminders have been addressed to the respondents, but to no avail.
In view of the facts obtaining on record, time until 15.2.2012 is granted to the respondents either to recover the amount or to place on record detailed affidavit stating all details right from the date on which the recovery certificate was issued until today and explaining the reasons as to why the recovery has not been effected.
Notice returnable on 15.2.2012.
In the event, until the returnable date, affidavit stating detailed explanation explaining the delay and default in executing the recovery certificate is not filed or the amount is not recovered, then, the respondent No.1 shall remain personally present in the Court on 15.2.2012, failing which, the Court may be compelled to pass appropriate orders.
The respondent Nos.2 and 3 will also explain as to why the amount has not been paid. If the amount is not paid on or before the returnable date of notice, the respondent No.3 shall also remain personally present in the Court on 15.2.2012, in default, appropriate directions may be issued.
In addition to the normal mode of service of notice, the petitioner is permitted to directly serve the respondents and the registry is also directed to serve the process through Registered Speed Post and also by Courier.
A copy of this order may be made available to the learned AGP, Mrs. V.S.Pathak. Learned AGP is also directed to separately intimate the respondent No.1 about present order and forward a copy of this order to the respondent No.1.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Umashankar vs Collector

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
16 June, 2012