Allowed

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. v. 1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Mumbai and Another.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2009NMA/3683/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court of Bombay High Court allowed notices of motion for condonation of delay in filing appeals against interim orders in writ petitions, quantifying costs of Rs. 250 each payable to the respondent union.

What did the court decide?

Notices of motion allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 250/- each to the respondent union within two weeks.

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. Vs 1… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3683 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.575 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2008

¶5

WITH

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3684 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.567 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2008

¶7

WITH

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3686 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.576 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1084 OF 2008

¶9

WITH

¶10

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3687 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.568 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1083 OF 2008

¶11

WITH

¶12

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3689 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.577 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 2008

¶13

¶14

WITH

¶15

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3690 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.571 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2008

¶16

WITH

¶17

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3691 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.573 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.979 OF 2008

¶18

WITH

¶19

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3692 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.570 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.977 OF 2008

¶20

WITH

¶21

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3693 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.572 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2008

¶22

WITH

¶23

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3694 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.569 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.975 OF 2008

¶24

WITH

¶25

¶26

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3695 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.564 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2008

¶27

WITH

¶28

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3696 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.566 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.976 OF 2008

¶29

WITH

¶30

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3697 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.565 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1095 OF 2008

¶31

WITH

¶32

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3698 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.574 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1096 OF 2008

¶33

M/s.Haldyn Glass Ltd. & Anr.

¶34

.. Appellants

¶35

Vs.

¶36

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents

¶37

Mr.V.P. Vaidya for the appellants

¶38

Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the respondents

¶39

¶40

CORAM :J. N. Patel & Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ

¶41

DATE : September 17, 2009

¶42

P.C. :

¶43

All the notices of motion are taken out by the Company for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeals against the interim orders passed in 14 writ petitions. The respondent no.1 in all the Notices of Motion is workmen Union. The Notices of Motion are opposed by respondent no.1.

¶44

In order to give a fair opportunity to the appellants, we are inclined to allow the notices of motion subject to cost of Rs.250/- each payable to the respondent no.1 in each matter.

¶45

Notices of Motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) on the condition that the appellants pay cost quantified at Rs.250/- to the respondent no.1 in each matter. Cost to be paid within a period of two weeks from today. Office to register the appeal on removal of all office objections and place the same for admission on 8.10.2009.

¶46

( J. N. Patel, J)

¶47

(Smt.R.P.Sondurbaldota, J)

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. v. 1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Mumbai and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. v. 1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Mumbai and Another.

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

Malti Madhav Desai Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

M/S Star Apparels Private Ltd. Vs Parampreet Singh Bindra Alias King Bindra and 6 Ors.

Shri Rajan Gangaram Vanmali Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs Vivek C. Shetty and Ors.

Manjulaben I. Shrimankar and Anr. Mumbai Vs Smt. Rekha Kumar Shrimankar , Mumbai

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai Vs Pramod Agarwal Mumbai