Allowed

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation v. Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jun 2011CAW/1208/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application under special leave, the High Court of Bombay recalled a conditional dismissal order dated 3.3.11 against the applicant who failed to serve an added respondent within time. The court directed the applicant to serve the added respondent within one week and restore the writ petition for admission after two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed to recall order dt.3.3.2011; applicant directed to serve respondent no.2 within one week; writ petition to be placed for admission after two weeks.

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

caw1208-11

ttm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1208 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9364 OF 2010

¶7

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation .. Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Rajay Parivahan Nivrutti Karmachari and Anr. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr.P.B.Kadam h/f Mr.G.S.Hegde for the Applicant

¶11

Mr.A.S.Peerzada for the respondent no.1

¶12

CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 20^th JUNE, 2011

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This application is preferred by original petitioner for recalling the order

¶16

dt.3.3.11 passed by this court (Coram: Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J.) The said order was conditional order. As per the said order, applicant failed to

¶17

serve respondent no.2 Maharashtra State Road Transport Kamgar Sanghtana within the stipulated time and therefore, matter stands dismissed.

¶18

caw1208-11

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they carried out amendment immediately within time but it remained on their part to serve added respondent within the stipulated time.

¶21

The learned counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that though this court granted extension to the applicant to comply the order dt.14.2.11, they failed to do the same. He submits that there is no substance in the present application and the same be dismissed with costs.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the averments made in para 2 of the application, I am of the opinion that the application is made out case for recalling the conditional order dt.3.3.11. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under:

¶23

“(a) That the order dt.3.3.2011 passed by Hon’ble Justice Smt.N.Mhatre be recalled and the matter may be restored to its original file and time may be extended by two weeks to give the notice to the added respondent no.2.”

¶24

Applicant is directed to serve copy of writ petition on respondent no.2 within one week from today and to file affidavit of service to that effect. Applicant is directed to serve respondent no.2 by private notice through their advocate either by registered post A/D and or by hand delivery.

¶25

Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

caw1208-11

¶27

¶28

Writ Petition to be placed on board for admission after two weeks.

¶29

(K.K. TATED, J.)

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation v. Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation v. Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

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

Indian Chronicles Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Alka P. Patankar (Decd.) -by Lrs - Dilip Purshottam Patankar and Anr. Vs the Secretary - Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad Vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. Vs Candulal Chindha Jadhav

Writer Safegaurd Pvt. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund and Ors.