OBSERVATIONS AT COURT

(BRIEFS)
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDA TRIPATHI, CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI – 110017
Date: 07.11.2023
1. Name of the case – Not known.
Facts observed – There was some dispute regarding granting access to
lift in the building where both the parties reside. The plaintiffs were old
aged husband & wife, above 60 years, one of them was even
handicapped.
Respondents’ submissions – Counsel stated that they do not want to
grant access to the lift, to the opposite party. It was also submitted that
husband and wife was seen jumping over stairs.
Plaintiff’s submissions – the Counsel submitted that plaintiffs are old-
aged and one of them is also suffering from physical disability. Also, they
never denied paying the lift charges.
Court’s decision as observed – The Court ordered for filing of framing of
issues by plaintiff by NDOH i.e., 20.12.2023.

2. Name of the case – Not known.

Facts observed – A comprehensive discussion was witnessed in the court
between the Plaintiff’s counsel and respondent’s counsel, regarding
certain provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Specifically,
provisions of sections 45A, 85B, 75 of the Act was discussed and
interpretated as well. Also, an application u/s 75(2-B) was presented by
the Plaintiff before the Court earlier (might have been presented before
the Employees’ State Insurance Court).
Plaintiff’s submissions –
 The Counsel submitted that there were no orders u/s 45A and 85B
of the Act.
 Alternatively, he also submitted that aforesaid orders, if any,
should be assailed.
 Reply/W.S. filed by the respondent earlier was also assailed by the
Counsel for plaintiff.
 It was also submitted that the Act is not revenue or tax- generating
mechanism.
 Respondent’s submissions –
 It was submitted that there are orders u/s 45, 45A, 85B in the
petition before the court.
 The Counsel for respondents pointed out that the prayers of the
other Counsel should stand on one side, as on one hand, the other
Counsel has submitted that there are not orders u/s 45A and 85B.
On the other hand, he submitted that if there are such orders,
then they are to be assailed.
 It was submitted that the other Counsel has failed to show a prima
facie case.
 Also, he submitted that the application of Plaintiff u/s 75(2-B)
should be assailed.
Court’s decision as observed – Ld. Judge observed that in respect of
notice, application for recovery and prohibitory order, Written statement has
not been filed yet by the respondent. Respondent’s Counsel sought 4 weeks of
time to file reply u/s 75 of the Act. The court held as follows:
 According to the ESI Act, numerous documents should be filed
along with the reply.
 Considering the urgencies raised by the Counsel for Respondent,
20 days’ time is granted for filing the W.S.