Partly allowed

M/S Arora Combins v. Damaji Ganpat Mankar and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2009NMW/550/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion, the single judge allowed the respondent to withdraw a statement that he was not pressing a claim under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act because he could no longer furnish the security required to withdraw previously deposited funds without affecting the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondent is allowed to withdraw the statement that he is not pressing the claim under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

M/S Arora Combins Vs Damaji Ganpat Mankar and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

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

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.550 OF 2008
 IN

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1755 OF 2007

¶5

 M/s.Arora Combines ....Petitioner
 V/s.

¶6

 Damaji G. Mankar & Ors. ....Respondents

¶7

 Mr.T.R. Yadav i/b Mr.S.S. Pathak for the Petitioner.
 Ms.Gayatri Singh for Respondent No.1/Applicant in the
 Notice of Motion.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
P.C. :

¶9

 1. Respondent No.1 seeks an order allowing him
 to withdraw the amount deposited by the Petitioner in
 this Court without furnishing any security.

¶10

 2. By an order dated 28.4.2008 in Notice of
 Motion No.150 of 2007 in the above Writ Petition, S.C.
 Dharmadhikari, J. permitted Respondent No.1 to
 withdraw the amount subject to his furnishing
 security. The learned Judge recorded the statement on
 behalf of Respondent No.1 that the security in the
 form of his immovable property or other income would
 be given by him to the Prothonotary and Senior Master.
 The learned Judge directed that a bank guarantee
 should not be insisted upon.

¶11

 : 2 :

¶12

 . In view thereof, Respondent No.1 made a

¶13

 statement that he does not press his claim under
 Section 17-B of the I.D. Act (for short "the said
 Act"). The Notice of Motion was accordingly disposed
 of.

¶14

 3. It is stated that the Prothonotary and Senior
 Master did not consider the documents furnished by
 Respondent No.1 to be adequate security. Respondent
 No.1 is unable to furnish any further evidence of his
 title in respect of his property. Respondent No.1 has
 no other security to offer.

¶15

 4. In view of the order dated 28.4.2008, I am
 not inclined to allow the amounts deposited in this
 Court be withdrawn without furnishing the security.

¶16

 . However, the statement by Respondent No.1

¶17

 that he does not press his claim under Section 17-B of
 the said Act as recorded in the order dated 28.4.2008
 was on the basis that he would be able to furnish
 appropriate security. Now that he is unable to do so
 the basis of this statement does not exist. In these
 circumstances, the ends of justice would be met by
 permitting Respondent No.1 to withdraw the statement
 that he is not pressing his claim under Section 17-B

¶18

 : 3 :

¶19

 of the said Act. No prejudice would be caused to the
 Petitioner by the same.

¶20

 5. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is
 disposed of by the following order :-

¶21

 Respondent No.1 is allowed to withdraw the
 statement that he does not press his claim
 under Section 17-B of the said Act as
 recorded in the order dated 28.4.2008.
 Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make
 an application under Section 17-B of the said
 Act.

M/S Arora Combins v. Damaji Ganpat Mankar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arora Combins v. Damaji Ganpat Mankar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amazon Online Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------

Claridges Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------

Goodluck Millenium Trading and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------

Shri Pramod Kedare Vs M/S. Jaihind Oil Co. Ltd. and Smt. Jyoti Pramod Kedare and Ors.

Smt. Indu R. Kripalani and Anr. Vs Divisional Joint Registrar and 3 Ors.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Siddhi Constrctions Ltd.