Dismissed

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012LPA/154/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 154 of 2012, the Court dismissed the appeal as unnecessary due to a settlement between parties agreeing to conduct trade union elections via the Registrar of Trade Unions, rendering the underlying civil suit and impugned judgment moot.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no opinion expressed on substantive legal questions as parties settled the matter.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

lpa-154-12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.154 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4253 OF 2012

¶4

Mr. Ashok Shinde and others. ... Appellants Versus Mr. K.V.J. Rao and others. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.P.Anilkumar for the appellants. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty and Ms.Rita K. Joshi for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.V.V.Bukhari for respondent No.6.

¶6

Mr.Bhushan Deshmukh i/by M/s. M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent No.7.

¶7

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J.. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶8

Wednesday , August 01, 2012

¶9

P .C.

¶10

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 July 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 14 March 2012 of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.

¶11

By the said judgment, the learned Judge, City Civil Court overruled the objection raised by the appellant-defendants against the maintainability of the civil suit and thus, overruling the objection that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 28-1A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the City Civil Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

1 of 3

SRK

lpa-154-12.sxw

After the matter was heard for some time, the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that it will not be necessary for the City Civil Court to try and decide the suit for the simple reason that the parties are now agreeable that the elections of the office bearers of the All India Cabin Crew Association of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. will be conducted by the Registrar of Trade Unions, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The elections will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Trade Union. In order to enable the Registrar of Trade Unions who is hereby appointed as Election Officer, the respondent No.3-National Aviation Company of India Limited shall render all necessary assistance to the Election Officer. The representatives of the appellants as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Registrar of Trade Unions on 21 August 2012 at 11.00 a.m. The Registrar of Trade Unions shall give appropriate directions and prepare the election schedule and conduct the elections.

¶16

In view of the above settlement between the parties, the civil suit pending before the City Civil Court is also agreed to be withdrawn after the Registrar of Trade Unions announces the election programme.

¶17

As far as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is concerned, in view of the above settlement, since the suit itself will not survive, the judgment under appeal would also not require to be tested. We, therefore, do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the view expressed by the learned Single Judge on the legal questions raised in this appeal. It will, however, be open to all the parties concerned to raise the contentions in any other proceedings where such questions may arise.

2 of 3

SRK

lpa-154-12.sxw

In view of the above settlement, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly states that appellant will endeavour to persuade the applicant before the Industrial Court to withdraw the proceedings filed against the election of plaintiff No.2.

CHIEF JUSTICE

N.M. JAMDAR, J .

3 of 3

SRK

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sadhana Andhalkar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. and Johnny Joseph and Anr.

Dr. Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Reynold Shirting Ltd. Vs Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala

Mohinder Kaur Kochar, Vs Mayfair Housing Private Ltd.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors.