Shri Bahusaheb Shivshankar Dhavan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri Bahusaheb Shivshankar Dhavan..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.....Respondents Nr.S.A. Kumbhakoni, for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent 1 and 2. CORAM : F.I.F.I. CORAM : REBELLO & F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007 DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007 P.C. P.C.P.C. . The petitioner resigned from service. Once he has so resigned the entire service is forfeited in terms of M.C.S. Rules and the petitioner is not entitled to any pension. The learned Counsel seeks to rely on the judgment in M/s.J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Vs.State of Up.P. & Ors.. AIR 1990 SC 1808. The expressions "retrenchment" and "Termination" have been considered in the context of Industrial Law and not in the context of M.C.S. Rules. That judgment would be of no assistance considering the Rule being provided for forfeiture of service. Considering the above, no interference called for. Petition rejected. F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO F.I.REBELLO R.M.SAVANT,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J R.M.SAVANT,J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Mar 2007. The bench was R M SAVANT, F I REBELLO, F I REBELLO R M SAVANT.
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.