This appeal challenges the permission granted to a respondent to withdraw a statement refusing to press a Section 17B application. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the discretionary order ensuring workman subsistence need not be interfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2009
IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 550 of 2008 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1755 of 2007
M/s. Arora Combines
...Appellant
v/s.
Mr. Damaji Ganpatmankar
...Respondents
Shri S.S.Pathak a/w. T.R. Yadav for the appellant. Gayatri Singh i/b. Bhavana Mhatre for respondents.
CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
DATED:- October 14, 2009.
P.C.
The present Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 24th February, 2009 whereby the Learned Single Judge permitted Respondent No. 1 in the Notice of Motion to withdraw the statement that was made on 28th April, 2008 stating that he would not press the Petition under Section 17B. We are informed that the Respondent in the present Appeal has already filed an application under Section 17B as per the liberty given to him.
2
CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the discretion to permit withdrawal of a statement refusing to press a petition under Section 17B when the appellant deposited amounts but the respond
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Arora Combines
Mr. Damaji Ganpatmankar
Swatanter Kumar
A.M. Khanwilkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
