The Single Judge allowed a review petition filed with a 121-day delay. The Court found substance in the petitioner's claim that the original counsel's statement of implementation was inadvertent. The impugned order of May 4, 2012 was revoked.
The order dated 4th May, 2012 is revoked; the review petition is disposed of.
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.
Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13
SSK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2013 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 5525 OF 2013 in WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2011
Shri Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi ....Applicant/ Petitioner Versus The General Manager, BEST ....Respondent
Mr. H. R. Singh, advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., advocates for the respondent.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
h April, 2013.
P.C.:
For the reasons stated in Paragraph Nos. 5 to 9, delay of 121
days occurred in filing the review petition is condoned and the civil application is disposed of as such.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Shubhada S Kadam 1/4
Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13
SSK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 5525 OF 2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2011
Shri Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi ....Petitioner Versus The General Manager, BEST ....Respondent
Mr. H. R. Singh, advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., advocates for the respondent.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
h April, 2013.
P.C.:
By consent, the review petition is taken up for hearing.
“Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the impugned order is already implemented. Therefore, he does not press the petition. Same is, accordingly, disposed of.”
Shubhada S Kadam 2/4
Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13
Thus, the writ petition was disposed of on the statement of the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order is implemented.
Shubhada S Kadam 3/4
Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13
never challenged either the Labour Court's order or the Industrial Court's order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the statement was made by the his counsel inadvertently and due to communication gap. I find that there is substance in this contention. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 4th May, 2012 is revoked.
6. In view of the above, the review petition is disposed of.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
4/4
Shubhada S Kadam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the review petition should be condoned.
Whether the petitioner's contention that the withdrawal of the writ petition was inadvertent due to a communication gap finds substance.
Shri Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi
The General Manager, BEST
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
