Dismissed

Omana Francis v. M/S. Jayant Tipnis and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2004WP/2814/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking challenge to an Appellate Authority order remanding a service dispute. The petition was rejected primarily on the ground of laches due to the petitioner's two-and-a-half-year delay in approaching the Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected on account of the petitioner's delay in approaching the Court and lack of fit case for extraordinary jurisdiction.

Omana Francis Vs M/S. Jayant Tipnis and Consultants… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2814 OF 2004

¶3

Omana Francis....................Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s.Jayant Tipnis & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.................Respondents Mr. George P. Thamas, for the Petitioner None for the Respodnents.

¶6

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, J. DATE : 16th October,2004

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

The Appellate Authority vide order dated 30th March,

¶9

2002	set	aside	the	orde	r of	the	Controlli	ng Authority	and
remanded	t	he mat	ter to		the		Controllin	g Authority	for
reconsiderat	ion	in t	erms	of	what	is	set ou	t in the	order.
This	petition	is filed	on	24th	August	, 2	004.	There is not	a
whisper	in	the	petition		explaining	as	to	why the	petitioner
could	not	move	this Cou	rt	between	the	date	of the order	and
24th	August,	2004	which	is	nearly	two	and	half years	after

¶10

passing of the order. On this ground along the petition is

¶11

liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶12

Apart from that before the Appellate Authority though

¶13

the	petition	er was served	, the	petitioner	chose	not	to		appear
at the	h	earing of the	Appe	al. The	Appellate	Authr	oity		on
hearing	Cou	nsel for the	appe	llant before	it,	the	r	e	spondents
herein	found	that the	Controll	ing Authori	ty had	not	fram	e	d an
issue	as	to whether	after	incorporation	of	M/s.Jayant			Tipnis
Consultants	P	vt. Ltd.,	and	M/s.Jayant	Tipnis,	Archi	tect		a
property	co	ncerned continued	to	exist.	The	contention		of	the
respondent	was	that the	petitio	ner herein	was	earlier			employed
with	Jayant	Tipnis, Archite	ct an	d was	employed	by th	e		company
which	was	incorporated in	the	year 1983	from	1st April,			1991

¶14

by	order	dated	31s	t	March,		1991.	There	are	some	other	reasons
which	ar	e	set	out	in	the	order.	I h	ave	considered	also	the
order	of		the		Controll	ing	Authority.	On	p	erusing	the	said
order	of		the		Controlli	ng	Authority	I do	not	find	that	the

¶15

Appellate Authority has committed any error of law in setting

¶16

aside the order of the Controlling Authority.

¶17

On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel contends

¶18

that the	Ap	pellate	Authority	had	n	o ju	risdiction	to	reman	d the
matter.	In	my	opinion	such	a	power	would	vest	with	the
Appellate	Authori	ty, if	it	comes	to	th	e conc	lusion	that	points
required	for	det	ermination	have	not	been	determi	ned	by	the
Authority	whose	order	is	appealed		before	it.		That	contention,
therefore,	as	urged	on be	half of		the	petitioner	by	the	learned
Counsel	has	to	be reje	cted.	If	the	argument	of	the	Counsel

¶19

for the petitioner is to be accepted, it will be justice that

¶20

will be defeated.

¶21

Considering that the petitioner as well as the

¶22

respondents	will have	an opportunity	of meeting	their	case	and
as the	petitioner has	approached this	Court after	two	and	half

¶23

years this would not be a fit case for this Court to exercise

¶24

its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence petition rejected.

¶25

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Omana Francis v. M/S. Jayant Tipnis and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omana Francis v. M/S. Jayant Tipnis and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti D.Talreja Vs R.D.Javkar and Ors.

K. Haridas L. Shenoy Vs M/S. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. and Ors.

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Rcf Workmens Union and Anr.

Shekhar S. Shetty Vs State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shashikant B. Vashi and Anr. Vs B. M. C. and Anr.

Galaxy Apartments Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Rajesh (Raju) Durgani and Ors.