How to check supreme court matter
NAVIN SURTI
(Querist) 08 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir/Madam,
Below is the Final order of Divisional Bench of Bombay High Court.
My Query is as follow :-
1)For how long peroid comnay can keep this order without implementing Bombay High Court Order ?
2) When company will approch Supreme Court Of Indai ?
3) How will v understand that Company have approch Supreme Court ?
4) How to check in Supreme Court ?
5) what to do against non implementing of order ?
Thanks,
Navin
Bombay High Court
LPA.127.2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2008
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3505 OF 2006
M/s. Modi Rubber Limited :Appellant
versus
Mr. B. Joseph and Ors. :Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2007
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2008
Mr. K. S. Bapat, with Mr. Jayesh Desai, i/b. M/s. Desai Desai
Associates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Y. M. Pendse, for the Respondents.
CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR &
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.
DATED :- NOVEMBER 27, 2012
P.C. :-
Heard Counsel for the parties. This Appeal takes
exception to the decision of the Learned Single Judge of this Court
dated 8th November, 2006, dismissing Writ Petition No. 3505 of
2006, which, in turn, took exception to the order passed by
Industrial Court, dated 25th August, 2005. The only point raised
before the Learned Single Judge, as can be discerned from the
Page 1 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2013 15:02:48 :::
Bombay High Court
LPA.127.2008.doc
Judgment under challenge, is that the Petitioner company being
sick industrial unit and its office at Mumbai was non functional,
the matter went by default and no evidence could be adduced on
behalf of the Petitioner company, in defence. This argument has
been negatived by the Learned Single Judge on the finding that no
evidence in that regard was produced before the Industrial Court
nor even a plea was taken by the Petitioner company before the
Industrial Court. As regards that opinion is concerned, the same is
unexceptionable. Even the Counsel for the Petitioner company, in
all fairness, submits that the said plea was taken by the Petitioner
company, for the first time, in the memo of Writ Petition, in
Paragraph 10 thereof. In Paragraph 10, it is asserted by the
Petitioner that the office at Mumbai was non functional and closed.
Not even a single employee was on the payroll of the employer.
Resultantly, no one deposed on behalf of the company, before the
Industrial Court.
2) Notably, the Petitioner company was represented by
Advocate, before the Industrial Court and the matter was
contested on behalf of the company by the Advocate. Nothing
prevented the Advocate for the Petitioner company to file formal
Page 2 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2013 15:02:48 :::
Bombay High Court
LPA.127.2008.doc
application pointing out the difficulty or inability in producing
witness to be examined on behalf of the Petitioner company, from
Mumbai. No affidavit of the Advocate has been filed in support
that he did not get any instructions from the Petitioner company at
all and proceeded with the matter on his own. No such stand has
been taken in the Writ Petition. In the circumstances, we find no
reason to deviate from the opinion recorded by the Learned Single
Judge, in rejecting the said contention raised for the first time, by
way of Writ Petition.
3) Counsel for the Appellant then submits that in any
case, there is one legal issue that needs to be considered in the
present Appeal. He submits that except the four Respondents
before this Court, all other workers have accepted the settlement
arrived at with them, respectively. As regards the four
Respondents in this Appeal, only one of them entered the witness
box. There is no evidence that each of the Respondent was
unemployed during the relevant period so as to become entitled
for the relief granted by the Industrial Court, as a matter of course.
According to him, it was necessary for the Industrial Court as also
to the Learned Single Judge to consider whether the four
Page 3 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2013 15:02:48 :::
Bombay High Court
LPA.127.2008.doc
Respondents in the present Appeal were entitled to get entire back
wages for the relevant period between 2001 till 2008, in absence
of such evidence. As regards this contention, it is noticed that no
such plea was taken before the Industrial Court. There is nothing
in the Judgment of the Industrial Court that the Petitioner
company resisted the relief as granted by the Industrial Court in
any manner, except on other issues. Moreover, no such plea has
been taken in the memo of Writ Petition, which was filed in this
Court; and considered by the Learned Single Judge. Notably, this
plea was not raised before the Learned Single Judge. The
Appellant company cannot be permitted to raise new grounds, for
the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal.
4) In the circumstances, this Appeal fails. The same is
dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application
is also disposed of.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)
Page 4 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2013 15:02:48 :::
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 09 April 2013
1. Minimum time id the time given by the high court.
2. Anytime within 90 days or thereafter.
3. You would get notice.
4. Check supreme court website.
5. File contempt case in the high court.
