... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.3039 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3039 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3039 OF 2006 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... Shri Rele, Sr.Counsel with Smt.M.H.Doshi for the Appellants. Shri H.V.Mehta for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2007. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2007. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Without going into question of maintainability of the Appeal, the same can be disposed of in the light of statement made by Shri Mehta appearing for the Respondent. He states that 50% of the amount of demand has been recovered by the Respondent from the Appellants. He states that recovery of the said amount can be treated as compliance with section 75(2)(B) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. In view of this statement, there is a compliance with section 75(2)(B) of the said Act of 1948. There is a substantial compliance with the direction given in the ... 2 ... impugned order. Hence, the Appeal does not survive and the same is disposed of. All questions on merits of pending Application under section 75 of the said Act of 1948 are expressly kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE