Ramlal S/O Martoti Fandi v. Shri Firoz Netrawala, Chairman/Managing Director Of M/S Universal Ferro And Allied Chemical Ltd.

1-CAW-359-22.odt 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 359/2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1020 OF 2018(D) Ramlal Maroti Fandi vs. Firoz Netrawala, Chairman/Managing Director of M/s.Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd.

Applicants :- Ravindra Tulsiram Gabhane and 133 others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for applicants.

Shri H.N.Verma, Advcate for non-applicant.

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE :- JULY 22, 2022 By this civil application 134 applicants have made a request for speaking to minutes. In the application it is stated that Writ Petition No.1020 of 2018 was filed by the original petitioner in representative capacity. However while deciding the same on 08.07.2019 the Court has proceeded on the basis that there was a sole petitioner before it. It is thus stated in the application that the observations made in the said order be clarified so that it would not come in the way of the applicants if they undertake recourse to appropriate legal proceedings.

On perusing the application and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that in paragraph 2 of the writ petition it was pleaded as under:

"The petitioner seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to file the present petition in the representative capacity on behalf of other 501 petitioners before this Hon'ble Court whose names are mentioned in the list filed herewith at Annexure-1."

When the writ petition was argued, leave of the Court to prosecute the writ petition in representative capacity was not

1-CAW-359-22.odt 2 prayed for. Similarly this Court while deciding the writ petition did not consider that aspect of the matter as averred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition.

With this clarification, the civil application stands disposed of.

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Andurkar..

ANDURKAR Personal Assistant 25.07.2022 18:08