Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

Interim Order - WP

The Gujarat High Court is set to examine the writ petition filed by Ultratech Cement Limited against the Assistant Labour Commissioner, indicating a willingness to consider both the maintainability and merits of the case. In a related case, the Federal Bank Ltd. appealed a judgment, with the Division Bench affirming that minor factual distinctions do not invalidate the applicability of prior decisions regarding writ applications. The Madras High Court emphasized that obtaining a writ requires both legal and equitable grounds, noting a significant amount of outstanding bank loans and the prevalence of interim orders that may hinder recoveries.

Uploaded by

selina.r
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

Interim Order - WP

The Gujarat High Court is set to examine the writ petition filed by Ultratech Cement Limited against the Assistant Labour Commissioner, indicating a willingness to consider both the maintainability and merits of the case. In a related case, the Federal Bank Ltd. appealed a judgment, with the Division Bench affirming that minor factual distinctions do not invalidate the applicability of prior decisions regarding writ applications. The Madras High Court emphasized that obtaining a writ requires both legal and equitable grounds, noting a significant amount of outstanding bank loans and the prevalence of interim orders that may hinder recoveries.

Uploaded by

selina.r
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Ultratech Cement Limited vs Assistant Labour Commissioner on 6

March, 2024- Gujarat High Court

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.


Mayank Chavda and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval waive service of
notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and respondent no. 2 to 2.4
respectively.

By issuing "rule returnable forthwith," the court signals that it


is not dismissing the writ petition in limine (at the threshold),
but is willing to examine the issues raised, including the
maintainability of the writ petition and the merits of the challenge
to the interim order.

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others


Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the
appellant preferred a writ appeal but referring to a decision of this Court
in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra
Bhan Dubey & Ors. ,

the Division Bench, observed that in an identical fact situation it was held that
writ application would be maintainable, minor distinctions on facts, here and
there, would not make the aforesaid decision inapplicable to scheduled banks.
With such observations the appeal was dismissed providing that the learned
single Judge shall decide writ petition on merits. The Federal Bank Ltd.
has preferred this appeal, against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

Madras High Court

E. Kandeeban vs The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

“46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article
226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law,
vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Coimbatore, 20 05 WLR 47, Chandra Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20, The Managing Director, Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation ( Madurai Division - IV) Ltd., Dindigul
Vs. P.Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639, Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134 , etc. To obtain a writ the
petitioner must not only show that the law is in his favour, he must also
show that equity is in his favour. In these cases even assuming that there is
some technical violation of law, there is no equity in the petitioners' favour.
Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 in
these cases in favour of the petitioners who have borrowed money and do not
wish to repay the same. We have been informed by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned
Senior Counsel for some of the banks that about Rs.1,34,000 Crores of bank
loans are outstanding in India and have not been repaid. In many cases, there
have been interim orders of various Courts which have stayed the recoveries.
Many of such interim orders were wholly unjustified, and passed only by
adopting an over liberal approach.

You might also like