Allowed

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Ramswaroop Sharma

Gujarat HC15 Jun 2018SCA/408/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the special civil application to quash an order of transfer dated 10.03.2010, noting that the parties had settled the underlying termination dispute, rendering the suit infructuous. The respondent is directed to withdraw the suit.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.03.2010 by Principal Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kheda quashed; respondent directed to withdraw the suit.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mukesh… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/408/2011 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 408 of 2011

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD

¶6

Versus

¶7

MUKESH RAMSWAROOP SHARMA

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 15/06/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Mr. Nirav Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Nanavati Associates, for the petitioner places on record a settlement arrived at between the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent herein. This settlement was arrived at in the proceedings before the Labour Court wherein the respondent had challenged his termination. By virtue of a full and final settlement the respondent has been paid an amount of Rs.7,52,150/-. Be it noted that in the present petition what was under challenge was the order of transfer. Apparent it is from the settlement produced on record that now that subsequent to the order of transfer when the respondent – original plaintiff had settled the dispute, the suit filed before the trial Court challenging his transfer would naturally not survive.

¶16

In view of the subsequent development by which the

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

C/SCA/408/2011 ORDER

¶19

parties have settled the dispute, the order dated 10.03.2010 passed below Ex. 41 by the Principal Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kheda is quashed and set aside with the consent of the parties. The respondent – original plaintiff is directed to approach the Civil Court with a copy of this order and make an appropriate application for withdrawal of the suit in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties which has rendered the suit infructuous. The Civil Court shall pass an appropriate order accordingly in accordance with law in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.

¶20

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶21

DIVYA

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Ramswaroop Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Ramswaroop Sharma

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

Nilima Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manojkumar Agrawal

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Deepakkumar Vinubhai Thaker

Amrutbhai Arkhabhai Chamar Vs Dhanabhai Dahyabhai Chamar Since Deceased- Heir of Dahyabhai Jethabhai Chamar

Heirs of Deceased Allahbux Bharuchwala Vs Hanifaben Wd./O Kasamji Devdiwada - Deleted

Chairman - Ambajogai Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Dhanraj & Company - through Power of Attorney Holder

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mukesh Ramswaroop Sharma