In this brief order, the bench observed that no immediate interference in the matter was required. The court left all contentions open to be raised at an appropriate stage before the second respondent authority.
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.
31.wp 78.15.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2015
Free Trade Unions Multipurpose .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Arshad Shaikh i/b Mr.Gautam Yadav, for the Petitioner. Mr.Kaushal Trivedi, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2 – State. Mr.K.R. Mehta – Respondent No.3 in person.
CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2016
P.C. :
. Parties through their Counsel.
that respondent No.2 has not passed any order which at this
stage can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. However, we left all contentions open which have
been raised in this Petition in regard to the authority and jurisdiction of respondent No.2 and also grievance in regard to the impugned order to the effect observing that the application
which will be submitted in format will be treated “as part of
1/2
31.wp 78.15.doc
Exhibit -1” as according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the earlier enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges levelled by the complainant against the petitioner's jurisdiction and as such, the matter can not be reopened at the instance of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 who is present in-person has disputed the contentions made by the petitioner.
( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)
2/2
Free Trade Unions Multipurpose
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 3
Shantanu S. Kemkar
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
