Partly allowed

India Tourism Development Corporation v. Umesh R. Erram and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2011WP/745/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order allowing a name substitution in a complaint. The Court upheld the substitution order but also quashed an impugned order as it failed to address a jurisdictional objection, remanding the matter for a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 8th November 2010 was maintained regarding name substitution; the order dated 10th November 2010 was quashed and the matter remanded.

India Tourism Development Corporation Vs Umesh R… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

wpl387.11.sxw

ssm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 387 OF 2011

I.T.D.C. Ltd. & Ors.

....Petitioners.

Vs.

Umesh R. Erram & Ors.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Prakash Ramamurthy for the Petitioners. Mr. M.D. Nagle for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 25^th MARCH, 2011

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The Petitioners have filed a common Writ Petition against the order dated 8^th November, 2010, whereby the Application filed by the Applicants to substitute their names in place of complainant Union, has been allowed.

¶14

2 The Petitioners-original Respondents raised objection about the maintainability of the complaint as the Union was unrecognized, therefore, the Application so filed by the Applicants to continue with the proceedings. Even otherwise, the complaint was filed on their behalf by the Union. Therefore, I see there is no reason to interfere in the order so passed by permitting to substitute their names in place of the Union. Therefore, the order dated 8^th November, 2010 is

wpl387.11.sxw

ssm

maintained with regard to Exhibit UA-1.

¶19

3 There is an order passed at Exhibit C-17, though objection was raised about the jurisdiction, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has not even considered the objection so raised. The issue of jurisdiction in any case, goes to the root of the matter as per para 3 of the Application, therefore, need to be considered as a preliminary issue. In view of this, the impugned order at Exhibit C-17 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back. The Member, Industrial Court shall give hearing to both the parties again and pass appropriate reasoned order after considering and dealing with all aspects of jurisdiction, as well as, maintainability of the Application, within a reasonable time. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10^th November, 2010 at Exhibit C-17, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back accordingly. The parties are at liberty to lead evidence, if any.

¶20

4 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

India Tourism Development Corporation v. Umesh R. Erram and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Tourism Development Corporation v. Umesh R. Erram and 5 Ors.

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

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Aleem J. Shaikh and 2 Ors.

The Ghatkopar Prakash Chs. Ltd. Vs Rameshchandra N. Khetani

Rohan M. Kapoor and 6 Ors. Vs Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and 8 Ors.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Oil Country Tubular Limited

Aparnaraj Co. Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd., Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aparnaraj Co. Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd., Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.