SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Guj) 174

V.H.BHAIRAVIA, S.B.MAJMUDAR
R. L. KALATHIA, BHAVNAGAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: ANIL R.DAVE, K.R.BRAHMBHATT, SUDHIR NANAVATI

S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner is permitted file separate writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging common orders in group of Recovery Applications Nos. 320 to 471 of 1980 under Sec. 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Special Civil Application No. 4256 of 1989 will be treated to be writ petition against the order in Recovery Application No. 320 of 1980. Separate writ petitions would be filed which may be treated as compa- nion writ petitions challenging common order in Recovery Applications Nos. 321 of 1980 to 471 of 1980 meaning thereby 151 additional companion petitions will be filed. They will bear necessary Court-fees. They will be filed on only one page showing names of the parties. Filing of rest of the pages in the petition and annexures dispensed with as they arise from the common award which was in consolidated proceedings. All these 152 petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) RULE in each of these petitions. We have heard the learned Advocate for the workmen Mrs. Shah and Mr. Shah for Mr. Dave for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. These petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 )










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top