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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
T. V. MADHUSUDHAN – Appellant
Versus
MAC LABORATORIES LTD – Respondent
CP 356/2004



ssm

sm

sm

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMPNAY

COMPNAY

COMPNAY PETITION NO. 356 OF

PETITION NO. 356 OF

PETITION NO. 356 OF 2004

2004

2004

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, appearances, Court’s

Orders or directions and

Registrar’s Orders

Court’s or Judge’s Orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Yadu Bhargavan i/by M/s.

Ratna Bhargavan & Associates for

the petitioners.

No appearance for the

respondents.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

DATED

DATED

DATED : 12th July, 2007

: 12th July, 2007

: 12th July, 2007

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

1. The present petition is filed

for recovery of retirement dues

and outstanding claim of salary

and bonus totalling to

Rs.98,000/-( Rupees ninety eight

thousand only). The statutory

notice was issued on 15th

January, 2002. The notice was

duly served. There is no dispute

to the said liability. The

petitioner, therefore, again sent

a reminder which remained

un-replied. The petitioner,

( 2 )

thereafter, in the circumstances,

has filed the present petition on

2nd December, 2003.

2. None appeared for the

company, though served. On 10th

March, 2005, this Court has

admitted the petition.

3. The petitioner has complied

all the formalities. The

affidavit of service dated 16th

March, 2005 and the affidavit of

publication dated 28th December,

2005 are the part of the record.

None appeared for the respondent

company. There is no resistance

and or defence raised to the

petition. The averments made,

therefore, remained

uncontroverted.

3. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, as the

claim is within limitation, the

( 3 )

present petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (a) and

(b).

4. The concerned parties to take

appropriate steps in accordance

with law.

[ANOOP

[ANOOP

[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

V. MOHTA, J.]

V. MOHTA, J.]

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top