Dismissed

Prem Kukmar Upadhaya v. Air India Limited Presently Known as National Aviation Company of India Lt. (Nacil) and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2015RPW/1/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition under Writ Petition No. 483/2011, the petitioner in-person sought reinstatement in service citing RTI information and parity with other employees. The reviewing Bench held the petition lacked merit as substantial issues were already argued successfully in the original writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prem Kukmar Upadhaya Vs Air India Limited… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/2 rpw 1.15.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2015 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2011

¶5

Prem Kumar Upadhaya V/s.	...	Petitioner
Air India Limited & anr.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prem Kumar Upadhaya, petitioner-in-person.

¶7

Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b. M.V. Kini & co. for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶9

13^th March, 2015.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

We have heard the party-in-person Mr. Premkumar Upadhaya and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Air India. The party-inperson submitted that there was no delay in approaching the High Court in filing Writ Petition No. 483/2011. The petitioner has placed on record certain information obtained under Right to Information Act in respect of the proceedings initiated against the employees of Air India and the decision taken by the management on their departmental appeals. The

¶12

2/2 rpw 1.15.sxw

¶13

compilation of orders is also placed on record. The petitioner further submitted that as other employees were allowed to join the duties inspite of there being adverse orders passed during the departmental enquiry initiated against them, the petitioner too deserves to be reinstated in service on the principle of parity.

¶14

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents submits that all these relevant substantial issues were argued and considered during the course of hearing of Writ Petition No. 483/2011. The applicant has not made out any case to entertain the review petition. Learned Counsel submits that atleast now the Court would consider awarding of costs by dismissing the review petition.

¶15

Considered the submissions, perused the record. The petitioner has failed to make out case for entertaining the review petition. The same is without merits. Review Petition is dismissed.

¶16

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶17

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Prem Kukmar Upadhaya v. Air India Limited Presently Known as National Aviation Company of India Lt. (Nacil) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prem Kukmar Upadhaya v. Air India Limited Presently Known as National Aviation Company of India Lt. (Nacil) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Audumbar Waghchoure Vs Prakash Bhaurao Navale

M/S.Nichrome India Limited Vs M/S.a.v.Cleaning Products Pvt.Ltd.

Shri. Ganesh Pandurang More Vs the Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Anr. Vs Champaben Mohan and Ors.

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Shri. Harish Dharnia and Anr.

Vakil R. Karra Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.