Disposed

M/S. R.K. Film and Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajeetram B,. Upadhyay and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2014WP/995/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court corrected clerical errors in Minutes of Judgment and Order regarding the amount of compensation to be deposited and interest calculations in two connected writ petitions involving a workman and an employer.

What did the court decide?

The praecipe to speak to the minutes of the order dated 4 July 2014 was disposed of after corrections to the order text and a one-week extension for depositing additional compensation.

M/S. R.K. Film and Studios Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajeetram B… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

902-WP-177-995

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2008

¶5

Rajitram V. Upadhya .. Petitioner vs. M/s. R. K. Film & Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 995 OF 2008

¶8

M/s. R. K. Film & Studios Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner vs. Rajeetram B. Upadhyay .. Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ashok Shetty with C. G. Jadhav and Swapnil P. Kamble i/b. Mr. Ashok D. Shetty for Petitioner in WP 177 of 2008 and for Respondent in WP 995 of 2008.

¶10

Mr. R. G. Hegde for Petitioner in WP 995 of 2008 and for Respondent in WP 177 of 2008.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 31 JULY 2014

¶12

P.C . :-

¶13

1] The praecipe is filed for speaking to the minutes of the

¶14

judgment and order dated 4 July 2014.

¶15

2] In paragraph 25, by reference to interim order dated 28 April 2008, it has been recorded that the employer was required to deposit an amount of Rs.3,57,000/- and that the record indicates

1/4

skc

902-WP-177-995

that only Rs.2,57,000/- has been deposited in this Court.

¶20

3] Upon a re-look at the interim order dated 28 April 2008, it is clear that the employer was required to deposit in toto an amount of Rs.2,57,000/- only.

¶21

4] Accordingly, paragraph 25 of the judgment and order be substituted by the following :

¶22

“25. The interim order made on 28/4/2008 required the employer to deposit an amount of Rs.2,57,000/-, which has been deposited by the employer on 23/5/2008. The workman will be entitled to withdraw the said amount along with interest, if any, as may have been accrued thereon. As per the impugned award, now modified by this judgment and order, the employer is, therefore, required to pay an additional amount of Rs.1 lac to the workman. Accordingly, the employer is directed to deposit in this Court further amount of Rs.1 lac within a period of four weeks from today. Upon this amount of Rs.1 lac the employer is directed to deposit interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 28/5/2008.”

¶23

5] Consequently, some changes are necessary in paragraph 26

2/4

skc

902-WP-177-995

of the judgment and order as well. Paragraph 26 shall now read thus:

¶28

“26. The Registry is directed to pay to the workman i.e. Mr. Rajeetram B. Upadhyay, an amount of Rs.2,57,000/along with interest, if any, as may have been accrued thereon, within a period of two weeks from today. Further upon the deposit of Rs.1 lac along with interest as directed by this judgment and order, the Registry is directed to pay the said amount to the workman i.e. Rajeetram B. Upadhyay.”

¶29

6] Mr. Hegde submitted that since compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been enhanced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2 lacs by the judgment and order dated 4 July 2014, even interest thereon should be made from the date of the judgment and order. This is not a matter which can really be gone into at the stage of speaking to the minutes of the order.

¶30

7] Mr. Hegde however submits that further period of one week be granted to the employer to deposit the additional compensation of Rs.1 lac along with interest. The request is reasonable and hence further time of one week is granted, as prayed.

3/4

skc

902-WP-177-995

8] The judgment and order be corrected accordingly, both in the records as well as in order uploaded on the website.

¶35

9] The praecipe dated 30 July 2014 is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶37

Chandka

¶38

4/4

M/S. R.K. Film and Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajeetram B,. Upadhyay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. R.K. Film and Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajeetram B,. Upadhyay 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

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Development Dept and Ors.

Container Corporation of India Vs Mr. Satyawan Dasharath Parkar C/O. Raghunath a. Botle and Anr.

Dnyaneshawar P. Suranje Vs the Assistant Commissioner, N-Ward, Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Others

Rajeetram B. Upadhyay Vs M/S. R. K. Films and Studions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bharat Petroleum Karmachari Union and Anr. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation and 2 Ors.

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Unique Integrated Transport and Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.