Disposed

M/S Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2024CRLMP/5633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a petition for quashing proceedings under the Contract Labour Act. It granted a limited indulgence allowing the petitioner company to pursue plea bargaining through its appointed counsel without insisting on the personal presence of its Deputy Managing Director as the representative.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction given to allow plea bargaining application to be represented by counsel without personal presence of Deputy MD.

M/S Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34836]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5633/2024

¶4

M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd., Through Its Whole Time Director And Chief Executive Officer Mr. Ajay Kapur (Designated As Dy. Managing Director In Criminal Complaint), Having Its Reg. Add. At Adani Corporate House, Shantigram, Near Vaishno Devi Circle, Sg Highway, Kodiyar, Ahmedabad.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Union Of India, Through Ncb

¶9

J.k. Meena, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ajmer, Raj. Having Its Office Add. At Kendriya Shram Sadan, Haribhau Upadhyay, Nagar Extn Pushkar Road, Ajmer, Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. assisted
	byMr. Rahul Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶13

Order

¶14

22/08/2024

¶15

Petitioner herein seeks quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuance to the complaint dated 05.01.2015 for alleged offences under Section 23 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Case No.75/2015.

¶16

Learned Senior counsel inter alia contends that one of the co-accused companies has already been meted out with the benefit of plea bargaining by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-. He submits that the co-accused / petitioner company is also entitled

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:34836]

[CRLMP-5633/2024]

to the same parity. However, he seeks limited indulgence that the same may be allowed to be carried out through its representative or through its duly appointed counsel. I see no reason why such an innocuous request cannot be accepted.

¶21

Accordingly, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that upon an application being filed by the coaccused No.2 i.e. the petitioner company, it will be allowed to be represented through a duly appointed counsel and its application for plea bargaining shall be disposed of in accordance with law without insisting for the personal presence of the deputy MD as representative of the company.

¶22

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶24

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶25

127-DhananjayS/-

M/S Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

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

Nand Singh Vs State

Madhusudan Gopal Vyas Vs State

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Singh Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan