Dismissed

Mr. Suhas Baburao Pokharkar and Anr. v. Mr. Ashok Bomaya Rai and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2017RPW/66/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a review petition challenging consent terms concluded in a writ petition regarding union elections. The court held parties cannot resile from consent agreements settled by them, which function as a contractual settlement.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed on the ground that parties cannot resile from consent terms they signed.

Mr. Suhas Baburao Pokharkar and Anr. Vs Mr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ssk 1/2 RPWST 3254/15-27/2/17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION (STM) NO. 3254 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10783 OF 2014

¶4

Suhas Baburao Pokarkar and anr.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Ashok Bomayarai & ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Kishor S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dharma Raj i/by PRS Legal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Avinash R. Belge, Advocate for respondent nos.19 and 20.

¶9

Coram : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 27^th February, 2017

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By consent the petition is taken on board for hearing. Respondent no.1 to the review petition had filed Writ Petition No. 10783 of 2014 seeking certain reliefs as regards the election to the office bearers of Oriental Bank of Commerce Employees Union. On 9^th December, 2014 the parties tendered consent terms. The same were marked 'X' for identification and the writ petition was disposed off in terms of the consent terms. The present petition for review is not in respect of any order passed by the Court but in respect of one of the clauses in the consent terms i.e. the term at Clause 5 of the consent terms. That clause provides that in the event the present petitioners failed to fetch more than 25% of total numbers of the votes, that would be cast during the election, they shall pay the costs

¶12

ssk 2/2 RPWST 3254/15-27/2/17

¶13

incurred for holding the election. Mr. Patil, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the review petitioners had not agreed for any such term. There is no dispute that the consent terms are signed by the review petitioners. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to resile therefrom after taking advantage of the same for holding re-election. In any case, there cannot be judicial review of the terms agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of settling the dispute, the consent terms being in the nature of an agreement between the parties. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.

¶14

[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.]

Mr. Suhas Baburao Pokharkar and Anr. v. Mr. Ashok Bomaya Rai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suhas Baburao Pokharkar and Anr. v. Mr. Ashok Bomaya Rai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar Pundlik Patkar and Ors. Vs Shivajirao Appaji Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Balasao Vithoba Jadhav

Sujata Pandurang Jogale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Das Vs Devidas Narayan Gundeti and Anr.

M/S Hema Park Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Suhas Baburao Pokharkar and Anr. Vs Mr. Ashok Bomaya Rai and Ors.