1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.5959 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4980 OF 2001 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2001 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd .. Petitioner versus The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation .. Respondents Mr Neel Helekar i/by M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co for the petitioner. Mr.H.V.Mehta for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19th December 2009. P.C: . The review petitioner is the appellant in the First Appeal which is directed against an order passed by the ESI Court on application under section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The said application under section 75 of the said Act of 1948 was filed for challenging an order under section 45-A of the said Act. The application under section 75 of the said Act was rejected by the ESI Court and therefore, First Appeal has been preferred which has been admitted. In the Civil Application No.4980 of 2001, ad-interim order was passed by this Court on 18th December 2001 directing that the appellant shall keep alive the bank guarantee already furnished in relation to 50% of the amount in question. With that direction, by way of ad-interim relief, stay was granted. 2 2. On 16th January 2007 the appeal was admitted after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties. The order under review dated 16th January 2007 is a final order passed by this Court on Civil Application for interim relief after the appeal was admitted. 3. The review is sought on the ground that a bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the amount was already furnished by the appellant as reflected in ad- interim order dated 18th December 2001 and the fact that bank guarantee was furnished was not brought to the notice of this Court when Civil Application was heard. 4. There is no merit in the review petition. At the time of final hearing of application for interim relief in an appeal, the appellant cannot rely upon ad- interim order passed by the Court before the appeal is admitted. The challenge by the appellant before the ESI Court was to a demand made as per section 45-A of the said Act of 1948. The challenge to the said demand failed before the ESI Court. Therefore, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of demand with the authorities subject to final outcome of the appeal. 5. Considering the nature of the impugned order which is subjected to challenge in the appeal, no case is made out for review. Review Petition is rejected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner prays that the time 3 to deposit the amount granted under order dated 16th January 2007 be extended. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By way of indulgence, time is extended by period of four weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)