Disposed

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. v. State Election Commission and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2019WP/1059/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the requisitioning of 479 employees for election work, the State Election Commission assured they would not require these specific cadres. Upon notification and acceptance by the Court, the petitioner withdrew the plea and the petition was disposed of without any order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner withdrew plea stating employees are necessary for plant running; no other relief granted as petition disposed.

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. Vs State Election… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wpl-943.19.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.943 OF 2019

¶5

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Limited … Petitioner Vs. State Election Commission and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pralhad Paranjpe a/w Mr. M.S. Bodhanwalla, Mr. Rushabh M. Sheth, Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla, Ms. Nidhi Boriya I/b. M/s. M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Borkar, Resident Deputy Collector, MSD is present. Mr. S.B. Potpose, General Manager, H.R. of the petitioner is present.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 3^rd APRIL 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP. The learned AGP who represents the second and third respondents on instructions of Shri. Rajendra Borkar, Resident Deputy Collector, MSD states that out of the employees of the petitioner, the said respondents will not requisition services of 479 employees (whose names appear in the List – C annexed to the letter dated 29^th March 2019 addressed by the petitioner to the Respondent No.3) for election work of ensuing Loksabha Election to be held on 29^th April 2019. A copy of the said letter dated 29^th March 2019 is annexed to the affidavit of

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

2 wpl-943.19.docx

¶14

Shri Rajendra Borkar, filed on behalf of second and third respondents which is dated 1^st April 2019. It is stated by the petitioner that presence of 479 employees is mandatory to ensure that running plant of the petitioner does not close down.

¶15

2 In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned AGP on instructions and in view of the acceptance of the said statement by the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions of Shri S.B. Potpose, General Manager (HR) states that the petitioner does not want to press the petition. Accordingly, by accepting the aforesaid statements, the petition is disposed of.

¶16

2 of 2

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. v. State Election Commission and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. v. State Election Commission and 2 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

Ramnaresh Mourya through Constituted Attorney Kuber Mourya Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and 6 Ors.

Rajiv Purushothaman Kutty Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.

Bellywear Vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

The Senior Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corpn of India Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Cancure Pharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

Vilas P. Kharche Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.