Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHIPAL SINGH & OTHERS versus SPECIAL JUDGE E.C. ACT KANPUR NAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahipal Singh & Others v. Special Judge E.C. Act Kanpur Nagar & Others - WRIT - C No. - 53122 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17219 (31 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon.Janardan Sahai,J

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan assisted by Sri Gopal Misra counsel for the petitioners.

Against an order cancelling the registration of the trade union an appeal was filed by the trade union through its Secretary Sushil Kumar. It is stated that on the application said to have been made by Sushil Kumar the appeal was ordered to be withdrawn on 8.4.05. An application was filed by Suresh Kumar alleging that he is the Secretary of the Union and that the appeal was fraudulently got withdrawn. On the application of Suresh Kumar the order permitting the withdrawal of the appeal dated 8.4.05 was set aside by the order dated 3.4.07. The petitioners then filed an application for setting aside the order dated 3.4.07 and another application to permit the petitioners to participate in the appeal. Both the applications have been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.9.07 passed by the Special Judge (E.C.Act). It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that Sushil Kumar made a statement before the appellate authority that he was made to withdraw the appeal by coercion. Thus it is clear that both Suresh Kumar and Sushuil Kumar have challenged the withdrawal of the appeal. The finding of the appellate authority is that the petitioners have colluded with the employer who is interested in the dismissal of the appeal. It has also been found that the impleadment application filed by the petitioners has already been rejected. On these facts the appellate authority did not commit any error in rejecting the petitioners' application for setting aside the order restoring the appeal and the application for permitting the petitioners for participating in the appeal. The findings do not suffer from any error which may call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed.

31/10/07sm

wp53122/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.