Nasik Workers Union v. M/s. Satwik Electric Controls Pvt. Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Heard Mr. Parmar in support of this Petition. Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Bank of Maharashtra which is Respondent No.3 and which is having a first charge on the properties of the Respondent No.1 states that the Petitioner Union may intervene in the recovery application…
Judgment
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for Petitioner Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Smt. Sonali A. Joshi for Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4. Mrs. M. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. DATED: 11TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 11TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 11TH JULY, 2005 P.C. P.C.P.C.
Operative part
Heard Mr. Parmar in support of this Petition. Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Bank of Maharashtra which is Respondent No.3 and which is having a first charge on the properties of the Respondent No.1 states that the Petitioner Union may intervene in the recovery application filed in the DRT or with the Recovery Officer. He has drawn our attention to the guide-lines framed by the DRT in this behalf, based on para 75 of the Judgment of Apex Court in Allahabad Judgment of Apex Court in Allahabad Judgment of Apex Court in Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank reported in 2000 A.I.R. S.C.W. Bank Vs. Canara Bank reported in 2000 A.I.R. S.C.W. Bank Vs. Canara Bank reported in 2000 A.I.R. S.C.W. page 1347. It will be open to the Applicant to page 1347. page 1347. intervene in the proceedings, as per the observations of DRT in para 7 of its order passed earlier in O.A. No.475 of 2002. That would secure the position of the workmen before any amounts are released to any other creditors. The Collector has attached some of the properties of the Company. Collector may proceed to recover the dues of the workmen. . The Petition is disposed of. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)
(SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Jul 2005. The bench was H L GOKHALE, R S DALVI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.