Quashed

Air India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2023APL/311/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an unreasoned order of process issuance by a Magistrate who merely stamped a generic order without recording reasons, directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order within three months while preserving applicants' rights to seek further recourse.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16 October 2018 of issuance of process is quashed and set aside; the Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh within three months.

Air India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

bipin prithiani

30-apl-311.20.doc

BIPINDHARMENDER Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2023.10.03 17:50:59 PRITHIANI +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 311 OF 2020

¶7

Air India Ltd., Having its Registered Office at: Airline House, 113, Gurudwara, Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110 001 & Regional Office at Old Airport, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 029. 2. Mr Mukesh Bhatia Former Regional Director – Western Regional Air India Ltd., Old Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 029. … Applicants Versus

¶8

Union of India Through Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) I, Shram Raksha Bhavan, Shivshrusti Road, Eastern Express Highway, Sion East, Mumbai 400022.

¶9

The Dy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Shram Raksha Bhavan, Shivshrusti Road, Eastern Express Highway, Sion East, Mumbai 400022.

bipin prithiani

30-apl-311.20.doc

Capt.S.C.S.Adhikari 5^th Floor, Khadayata Bhavan 213, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Girgoan, Mumbai – 400 004. … Respondents

¶14

¶15

Mr Lancy D’souza, Advocate a/w Ms Heena Shaikh and Mr Rakesh Singh i/by M.V. Kini & Co. for the Applicants.

¶16

Mr Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate a/w Mr Shekhar Mane for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶17

Capt. S.C.S.Adhikari, Respondent No.3, present.

¶18

¶19

CORAM: R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶20

DATE : 3 OCTOBER 2023

¶21

P.C. :-

¶22

. Heard Mr Lancy D’souza, the learned Counsel for the Applicants, and Mr Shreeram Shirsat, the learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2. Also heard Mr S.C.S. Adhikari, Respondent No.3, who is present in person.

¶23

Upon perusal of the Order dated 16 October 2018 passed in C.C.No.502860/SS/2018 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai (‘impugned order’), it is apparent that the order of issuance of a process/ impugned order is cryptic and unreasoned in a printed form.

¶24

The learned Magistrate has affixed a rubber stamp engraved

bipin prithiani

30-apl-311.20.doc

with the following words:

¶29

“ Order.

¶30

Complaint filed by complainant in

¶31

person. It be registered as summons case. Sd/-

¶32

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 5^th court, Dadar, Mumbai

¶33

Heard complaint, Issue

¶34

process.............................. Sd/-

¶35

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 5^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai”

¶36

After affixing the aforesaid stamp, the Magistrate filled the blank space with the following words: “under section 29 of I D Act 1947 ” by hand. This is not the appropriate manner in which judicial discretion should be exercised. The Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused.

¶37

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty, Respondents No.1 and 2/ original complainant should not be held responsible and should not have to endure any consequences due to the Magistrate’s failure.

¶38

As a result, the impugned order dated 16 October 2018 of issuance of a process, in C.C. No.502860/SS/2018, pending before

bipin prithiani

30-apl-311.20.doc

the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with law, expeditiously and as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶43

The application stands disposed of. It goes without saying that, if necessary, the applicants are free to seek legal recourse for their grievances, if the occasion so arises. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶44

R. N. LADDHA, J.

Air India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India 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

Atul Kamdar Vs Santosh Balkrishna Lonandkar and Anr.

Bharat Jaywant Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Vithal Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul P. Vyas (Huf) through Its Karta Rahul P. Vyas Vs Pranay Shah and Ors.

Shailesh Vijay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shobhakailash Kenjale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.