Disposed

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bharat D. Salunke

Bombay HC8 Feb 2008WP/2046/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition on terms agreed by parties wherein the order was set aside, the complaint withdrawn, and the petitioner paid half the deposited amount with interest as ex-gratia payment without prejudice to rights.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; complaint withdrawn; petitioner ordered to pay 50% deposit with interest to respondent as ex-gratia payment.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Bharat D… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2046 OF 2007

¶4

 Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
 Co.Ltd. ...Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Bharat D.Salunke ...Respondent

¶7

 Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Sanika Deshpande
 i/b Haresh Mehta & Co. for Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.Ravindran Nair for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 FEBRUARY 8, 2008.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Rule. Mr.Nair waives notice for the

¶13

 Respondents.

¶14

 2. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith

¶15

 by consent in view of the order dated 29th October
 2007 to proceed with the matter for final disposal
 at admission stage.

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 3. Counsel for the parties on instructions

¶18

 state that the parties have agreed that the order
 in question be set-aside and the complaint (ULP)
 No.232 of 2003 which was originally filed by the
 Respondent would stand withdrawn. The Petitioner
 has agreed to pay 50% of the amount already
 deposited by the Petitioner in this Court in terms
 of the impugned order along with interest accrued
 thereon to that extent, if any, to the Respondent
 as ex-gratia payment, without prejudice to the
 rights and contentions of the Petitioners. It is
 ordered that this arrangement arrived at between
 the parties shall not be treated as precedent. The
 Respondent is personally present in Court and has
 instructed his Advocate in the presence of the
 Court to agree for this arrangement.

¶19

 4. The Petitioner will be free to withdraw

¶20

 the balance 50% of the amount deposited in this
 Court along with accrued interest thereon to that
 extent.

¶21

 5. Office to act on the above directions

¶22

 : 3 :

¶23

 allowing the respective parties to withdraw the
 respective amounts.

¶24

 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶25

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bharat D. Salunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bharat D. Salunke

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

Janardan Jyotiram Jadhav Vs Vishnu Purshottam Sohoni (Decd.)by Lrs.

Gaintech Enterprises Vs Smzs Chemicals Ltd.

Shreeram Choudhary Vs the O. L.,High Court, Bombay,Liquidator of M/S. Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd.

Kishan Atmaram Maheshwari and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hoganas India Limited Vs ---------------------------------------

M.T.N.L. Vs Reliable Copy Centre and Anr.