Partly allowed

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2010WP/2083/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court criminal writ petition set aside a conviction order dated 17th November 2009 in a Maharashtra Minimum Wages Act case. The court held that the order should apply only to accused who pleaded guilty, excluding others who did not.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of petitioners (accused nos. 2 to 10) set aside; order restricted to accused nos. 1 and 11 who pleaded guilty.

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. and Ors… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr wp 2083-10.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2010

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance
Ltd & Ors

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Vs

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Faisal Sayyed and
Mr. Mayur Bhojwani i/b M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co for the
Petitioners

¶11

Ms. Seema Rawade for Respondent NO. 2-BMC

¶12

Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶13

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶14

DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2-BMC and learned APP for
the State.

¶17

2.Complaint came to be lodged by respondent no. 2-BMC
against the petitioners in respect of contravention of
Rule 27(2) and 27(4) of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Act,
1948 and Rules made thereunder. The petitioners are
aggrieved by the order dated 17th November 2009 passed by
the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Special
Court, Borivali in Case No. 552/SMM/2009. By the said

¶18

¶19

cr wp 2083-10.doc

¶20

order, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused
and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 13,200/-.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate recorded the plea of only accused nos. 1 and 11, who pleaded guilty to the said charge. However, by the order dated 17th November 2009, he convicted all the accused including accused nos. 2 to 10 who had not pleaded guilty to the said charge. An application was also filed by the accused nos. 1 and 11 seeking rectification of the order dated 17th November, 2009. However, no order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the said application.

¶22

4. The learned Magistrate committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the order dated 17th November 2009 is restricted to only accused nos. 1 and 11 who have actually pleaded guilty before the trial Court. The said order of conviction in respect of the present petitioners i.e accused nos. 2 to 10 is set aside. It is open to the petitioners to move for appropriate relief before the appropriate forum in respect of the order issuing process against them.

¶23

5. Petition disposed of in above terms.

¶24

[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶25

¶26

cr wp 2083-10.doc

¶27

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Vishwanath Shama Shetty and Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Shankar Dattatray Ingawale Vs Rajashree Shankar Ingawale and Anr.

Pappu @ Ravindra Devidas Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudha Ravi Vs Nazir Mohammed Hussain and Anr.

Xerox Modicorp Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dipak Lihati Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra