IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 981 OF 2017 Shirish Nagnathrao Gite, Prop. M/s Hotel Rohit Bar And Restaurant,nanded VERSUS Branch Manager, E.S.I.C. Office, Nanded And Another ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Hanmant V. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Anirudha Usmanpurkar ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8297 OF 2016 IN FA/981/2017 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 09, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, being aggrieved by the order dated 17th August, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in ESI Petition No. 1 of 2013. 2. The appellant had filed an application at Exhibit 5 seeking stay of execution and implementation of notice dated 02/11/2012 issued by respondent No. 1, Branch Manager, ESIC Office, Nanded. 3. The learned Court has rejected the application on the ground that the appellant did not deposit 50% of the amount of contribution as claimed in the said notice, as contemplated under Section 75(2B) of Page 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:41550 905 WP 981-2017 the ESI Act. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant contends that the learned Court completely lost sight of the proviso to Section 75(2B), which confers a discretion to waive or reduce the amount of deposit as contemplated under the main provision. He contends that perusal of the order does not indicate application of mind by the learned Court in the light of the proviso to Section 75(2B). 5. As regards merits of the matter, the learned advocate contends that the establishment of the appellant was already closed, and the notice of demand was for a subsequent period. 6. Attention is drawn to letter, where the date is mentioned as 20/03/200—. The precise year is not mentioned in the letter. The letter does not bear any acknowledgement of delivery to the office of respondent. There is no material on record to infer delivery of the said letter to the respondent. 7. Likewise, perusal of the letter further indicates that specific date of closure is not mentioned in the letter. It is stated that the business is closed tentatively 3 to 4 years prior to the date of issuance of letter. It, therefore, appears that the appellant was not sure about the tentative period when the business was closed. Page 2 of 3 905 WP 981-2017 8. In the light of the aforesaid, even if the contention of the appellant that the learned Court should have considered granting waiver or reduction of amount of pre-deposit is accepted, yet on facts also, the appellant is unable to make out any prima facie case for grant of interim relief. 9. In view of the aforesaid, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending Civil Application No.8297 of 2016 stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 3 of 3