The Single Judge held that the claim could not be decided under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Supreme Court, in agreement, dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
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 LODGING NO. 428 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 524 OF 2009
Jayantilal Damji Pandit ....Appellant Versus Seth Cursondas Natha ....Respondent
Shri Mahendra Agavekar, Advocate i/b. H. Kumar Vaidyanathan. Shri Sanjay Udeshi, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR & R. V. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 5th DECEMBER, 2009.
P.C.:
Appeal is taken for admission, today. The Registry is directed to give appropriate number to the Appeal.
Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)
Sd/-
(P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim could have been decided under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Whether the appeal against the Single Judge's decision dismissing the claim should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayantilal Damji Pandit
Seth Cursondas Natha
R. V. MORE
P. B. MAJMUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
