Disposed

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar v. the General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Bombay HC21 Jun 2013WP/1798/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petitioner three months, until 30 November 2013, to vacate the premises from the Bank without unfair terms. This extension was conditioned on the Labour Court disposing of pending proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Time granted up to 30 November 2013 to vacate the premises; Labour Court to decide proceedings within three months.

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar Vs the General Manager… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-1798.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1798 OF 2013

¶5

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar .. Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.S.A. Sawant for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Shyam Mehta,Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21 JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submits that if some reasonable time is granted to vacate the premises and the proceedings pending before the Labout Court are directed to be disposed of within reasonable time, the petitioner will not press the Petition on merits.

¶11

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after taking instructions from the Petitioner, who is present in the Court, submits that one years time be given to vacate the premises. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank submits that it should be as minimum as possible considering the fact that the Petitioner was dismissed from service in January 2011 and continues to occupy the premises, the learned Counsel, on instructions, submits that though 15 days’ period is sufficient, states that at the most three months period can be considered.

¶12

Considering that fact that the Petitioner is not pressing the

¶13

ppn 2 wp-1798.13.doc

¶14

matter on merits and that he will give an undertaking that he will vacate the premises without any conditions whatsoever if reasonable period is granted and considering the fact that the Petitioner is Class-IV employee, time upto 30 November 2013 is granted to the Petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶15

It is made clear that this indulgence is shown to the Petitioner on his submission that he will not ask for extension of time. It is made clear that the Petitioner will also not try to connect the factum of vacating the premises with the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court. The Petitioner will file necessary undertaking of himself and adult members of the family within two weeks from today with advance copy to the Respondent.

¶16

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the matter in the labour court is now fixed for argument. It that be so, the Labour Court will hear and decide the proceedings within a period of three months from today. It is once again made clear that the Petitioner will not seek further time to vacate the premises if the proceedings before the Labour Court are not disposed of within three months. It is however expected that both the parties will assist the Labour Court in early disposal of the proceedings and will not seek needless adjournments.

¶17

All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. It is clarified that the occupation of the Petitioner

¶18

wp-1798.13.doc

¶19

ppn 3

¶20

in the premises till he vacates the premises under this order will be governed by the rules applicable to such occupation.

¶21

If the undertaking as mentioned above is not filed within a period of two weeks from today, the above mentioned protection will cease forthwith.

¶22

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar v. the General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar v. the General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

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

Ganpat Mahadev Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs, Kapil Ganpat Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav Vs Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors.

Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust, through Managing Trustee, Shantinath Jangonda Patil Vs Shri. Mahaveer Jangonda Patil and Anr.

Pandharinath Bhikaji Telge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit Jalochi Vs Ashok Lalasaheb Jagtap and Anr.

Smt. Saraswati Malwiya Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.