1 39 fa.1854.08 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1854 OF 2008 M/s. Impression Advertising Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr. ... Respondents ----- Mr. P.M.Bhagat for the Appellant. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08 th April, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 This is an appeal under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court at Mumbai by which an application under Section 75 of the said Act made by the Appellant for challenging the notice demanding the contribution for period from November 1978 to May 1988 and from June 1988 to May 1989 was rejected. By the impugned order, the said 2 39 fa.1854.08 application has been dismissed mainly on the ground that for challenging the same demand, earlier application was made by the Appellant under Section 75 of the said Act, which has been dismissed on the ground of failure to deposit 50% of the amount demanded as required by law. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the earlier application was dismissed on the ground that the application for waiver of the deposit was dismissed and that the deposit of the 50% of the amount was not made. He submitted that there is no adjudication made on merits by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court while dismissing the earlier application. He, therefore, submitted that a fresh application for challenging the same demand was maintainable. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that earlier application made under Section 75 of the said Act for challenging the same demand which is the subject matter of the present Application was dismissed. The dismissal may be on the ground 3 39 fa.1854.08 of non-compliance with the requirement of deposit of 50% of the amount. However, the remedy of the Appellant was to challenge the order of dismissal. Successive application for challenging the same demand was not maintainable as the earlier application was dismissed for non- compliance with the statutory requirements. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed. 5 Civil Application No. 4848 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]