Writ petition challenged the Labour Court's order allowing the opponent to file its written statement. The petitioner had not opposed the application below. The High Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court's discretion and rejected the petition.
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.
Sonali Mane
41-WP-577-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 577 OF 2024
Mahendra Irappa Kamble … Petitioner
Versus
Eta Engineering Pvt. Ltd Thr. Its Directors And Anr … Respondents
Mr. Lalasaheb Bandal for Petitioner
Mr. Abhishek T. Ingale a/w Mr. T. R. Yadav i/b C. R. Naidu & Co. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vinay Menon & Ms. Kirti Shetty i/b Mr. Kishorkumar Shetty for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 22 OCTOBER 2024.
P.C. :
MANESONALIDILIP Digitallysigned byMANESONALIDILIPDate:2024.10.2511:22:33+0530
___Page No.1 of 2 ___ 22 October 2024
Sonali Mane
41-WP-577-2024.docx
allowing the Application and permitting the Opponent to file written statement.
4) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected .
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2 ___ 22 October 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in permitting the opponent to file its written statement at a late stage.
Mahendra Irappa Kamble
Eta Engineering Pvt. Ltd Thr. Its Directors
Anr
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
