The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition after clarifying that it might be more appropriate to challenge the final order or maintainability of the complaint later. The Court granted leave to withdraw.
Leave to withdraw the petition and dismissal of the petition as such; no costs.
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.
WP2350-10
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2350 OF 2010
M/s.NOCIL Limited .. Petitioner Versus Pandurang Mane .. Respondent
Mr.Sanjay S. Anabhavne i/b. M & S Legal Ventures for respondent Mr.Cama, Senior Advocate i/b. Sanjay Dhulapkar for petitioner
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 17th January 2011
P.C.:
1] Heard Mr.Cama, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner. It is not necessary to interfere with the findings of the Court below on the preliminary issue. If the final order in the complaint is adverse to the petitioner, then while assailing the same, the petitioner can raise appropriate pleas regarding the findings on the preliminary issue and maintainability of the complaint, including that the respondent employee was engaged on contract basis.
2] In the light of the above clarification, Mr.Cama seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Request granted. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. No costs.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)
M/s.NOCIL Limited
Pandurang Mane
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
