Akshay Ramesh Kharde vs Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9268 Bom

                                 1/5    RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 13880 OF 2021
                                  IN
                 WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 11117 OF 2021

Akshay Ramesh Kharde                                      ... Petitioner
           Vs.
Union of India through
The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers & Ors.          ... Respondents

                               ...........
Mr. Prasad P. Pathare a/w. Ms. Almas Sati i/b. Mr. Rajesh D. Bindra
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla a/w. Ms. Sakshi Sharma i/b. M/s. M. S.
Bodhanwalla and Co. for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

                                   ..........
                      CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                             MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 15th JULY, 2021.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

P. C:-

1. Matter is placed on board for speaking to the minutes of

order dated 9th July, 2021 passed by this Court on praecipe filed by

the Petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner has no objection if

the correction as suggested in the praecipe filed by Respondent Nos.

2 to 4 are carried out in the said order dated 9th July, 2021.

Sonali

2/5 RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc

3. However, so far as correction suggested by the Petitioner for

reduction or waiver of the cost quantified at Rs.25,000/- in

paragraph 10 directed to be paid to the Respondent No.1 is

concerned, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on

instructions opposed any reduction or waiver of the said cost as

suggested by the Petitioner.

4. Order dated 9th July, 2021 is corrected in terms of the praecipe

filed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 dated 10th July, 2021.

5. In so far as correction suggested by the Petitioner regarding

cost quantified as directed to be paid by the said order is concerned,

Mr. Pathare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the

learned Advocate on record as well as learned Counsel have

appeared in the Review Petition as well as in the Writ Petition almost

pro bono and considering financial condition of the Petitioner, the

cost awarded by this Court shall be waived or reduced. Statements

made by the learned Counsel are accepted. Directions issued by this

Court in paragraph No. 10 of the order dated 9 th July, 2021 stands

deleted.

Sonali

3/5 RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc

6. It is made clear that if the Petitioner files any frivolous

proceedings in future, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 can press for cost in

that matter.

7. The order passed by this Court dated 9 th July, 2021 as

corrected reads thus:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 13880 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 11117 OF 2021

Akshay Ramesh Kharde ... Petitioner Vs.

Union of India through The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers & Ors. ... Respondents ...........

Mr. Prasad P. Pathare i/b. Mr. Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla, Counsel a/w. Sakshi Sharma i/b. M. S. Bodhanwalla and Co. for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and

4. ..........

CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 9th JULY, 2021.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

P. C:-

1. By this Review Petition the Petitioner seeks review of the order dated 27th May, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 11117 of 2021 whereby interim relief was rejected.

2. Writ Petition is still pending. The review is sought on

Sonali

4/5 RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc

the ground that there was no substance in the FIR for the offence under section 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The second ground seeking recall of the order is that there was no material on record that Petitioner has suppressed about filing of the FIR against the Petitioner prior to 1 st February, 2021 or at any stage.

4. Third submission of the learned Counsel is that several documents which were not placed on record by the learned Advocate were relevant for the purpose of deciding Writ Petition. Petitioner had also relied on the several judgments in support of his submission that merely because FIR was pending and was not brought to the notice of the employer at the stage of appointment that would not permit the employer to terminate the services of an employee.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 opposed the Review Petition on the ground that no grounds are made out under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. In so far as the first ground of the Petitioner that the FIR has no substance, in so far as offence under section 376 or 354 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court has refused to grant interim relief on the ground that Petitioner has suppressed factum of filing of FIR with the employer at any stage prior to 1st February, 2021. In our view suppression of these facts was material and thus interim relief was rejected by order dated 27th May, 2021.

7. In so far as second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no material on record that Petitioner has suppressed about filing of FIR before 1 st February, 2021 is concerned, the impugned order terminating the services of the Petitioner itself indicate that termination was effected on the ground of suppression of FIR. The Petitioner did not produce any material on record that Petitioner had informed the employer about filing of such FIR. There is thus no substance in this submission.

8. In so far as last submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, that several documents were

Sonali

5/5 RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc

available with the Petitioner but not produced by the learned Advocate on record and several judgments which Review Petitioner sought to rely upon have not been considered by this Court is concerned, we cannot allow the Petitioner to re- argue the matter on merits because Writ Petition is still pending.

9. This matter was heard on 27th May, 2021. We have only considered whether case was made out for grant of interim relief or not. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already filed their affidavit-in-reply. Review Petition is devoid of merits. There is no merit in any of the grounds raised by the Petitioner seeking recall of order dated 27th May, 2021.

10. Review Petition is thoroughly misconceived. Review Petition is dismissed."

8. Order dated 9th July, 2021 stands corrected accordingly.

Praecipe are disposed of.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)

Sonali