Court rejected a complaint seeking contempt proceedings against an advocate accused of causing loss due to defective filing dates and alleged improper conduct regarding a rejection of a condonation application in industrial service matters.
Complaint seeking reference against the advocate is rejected.
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.
WP 1500.11.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1800 OF 2011
Mrs. Krishna S. Singh. V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Petitioner.
... Respondents.
Mrs. Krishna Satish Singh, Petitioner-in-Person. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011.
P.C. :-
Heard the Petitioner-in-person extensively. Her grievance is inspite of approaching the Advocate in January 2006 for initiating proceedings against the Petitioner's Exemployer, the Advocate - Respondent No.2 even after receipt of the Advocate's fees or the charges, erroneously referred in the Vakalatnama the date of filing to be 10th March 2006 and also the affidavit is referred to be sworn on 10th March 2006. The Petitioner-in-person submits, it should have been sworn well in advance prior to expiry of 90 days period for redressal. The lapse on the part of the Advocate (Respondent No.2) as according to her resulted on merits of the matter and she lost the condonation petition before the learned Member, Industrial Court at Mumbai.
WP 1500.11.sxw
2
Industrial Court and by order dated 13th July 2006, he did not agree to condone the delay and the application was rejected. Review Application No.9 of 2006 seeking to recall the order referred above did not yield any result. The learned Judge could not review his order in terms of bar created under Section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act and also Rule 44 sub-Rule 6 of Industrial Court Regulations, 1975.
3 WP 1500.11.sxw
Krishna S. Singh
State of Maharashtra
Vandita
K.U. Chandiwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
