Bombay High CourtCAO/699/2015admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director v. Minexplore Employees Democratic Union, Nagpur And Others

2015-04-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq4 pages

1 cao699.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.O. NO.699/2015 IN M.C.A. APPLICATION (REVIEW) STAMP NO.6274/2015 IN M.C.A. NO.1082/2014 (D) IN WRIT PETITION NO.5139/2013 (P) Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Nagpur ..Versus..

Minexplore Employees Democratic Union, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 15.4.2015 Heard Shri M.D. Samel, the learned advocate for the applicant and Shri A.P. Gera, the learned advocate for the non-applicants 1 to 14.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the

2 cao699.15 miscellaneous civil application is condoned. The civil application is allowed.

M.C.A. STAMP NO.6274/2015 This is an application filed by the original respondent no.2 seeking review of the interim order passed by this Court on 13 th February, 2015. Shri Gera, the learned advocate for the original petitioners have raised an objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the order dated 13 th February, 2015 was passed on review application and the second review application cannot be entertained. Shri Samel, the learned advocate for the applicant/respondent no.2 submits that the order dated 13 th February, 2015 is passed on review application which was filed by the original petitioners and it cannot be said that the present application filed by the original respondent no.2, is not maintainable. Without delving into the above controversy, in my view, the application has to be dismissed as I do not see any error apparent on the record to review the order dated 13 th February, 2015. The

3 cao699.15 submissions, which are now made on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.2, were made at the time of hearing of the review application on which the order dated 13 th February, 2015 is passed. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.2, clause (ii) was incorporated in the order dated 13 th February, 2015.

In view of the above, I do not see any reason to review the order dated 13 th February, 2015. The prayer made on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.2 in that regards is dismissed. However, considering the facts of the case, the applicant/respondent no.2 is granted time till 15 th July, 2015 as prayed by it to comply with the order dated 13 th February, 2015. It is clarified that no further extension of time will be granted. The civil application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE

4 cao699.15 Tambaskar.