Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2016

Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman

     ITEM NO.1                          COURT NO.10                  SECTION IX

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)               No(s).   16835/2015

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated                08/05/2015
     in WP No. 326/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay)

     JEEVANRAO VISHWANATHRAO GORE                                     Petitioner(s)

                                                VERSUS

     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.                                      Respondent(s)

     (with interim relief and office report)
     (for final disposal)

     WITH
     SLP(C) No. 16737-16739/2015
     (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for
     exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment)

      SLP(C) No. 16913/2015
     (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for
     exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Interim
     Relief and Office Report)

      SLP(C) No. 34538/2015
     (With Interim Relief and Office Report)

      Date : 10/03/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing
     today.

     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

     For Petitioner(s)             Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG
                                   Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.

                                   Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Adv.
                                   Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, Adv.
                                   Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.


     For Respondent(s)              Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.
Signature Not Verified
                                    Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2016.03.10
17:01:44 IST
Reason:                             Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
                                    Ms. Anagha S. Desai,Adv.
                                   - 2 -

                      Mr.   Rohit Sakhadeo, Adv.
                      Mr.   Dhruv Kapur, Adv.
                      Mr.   Siddharth Bhatia, Adv.
                      Mr.   Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv.

                      Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.
                      Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma,Adv.


      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

Since the term of the petitioner who was appointed as Chairman of the Maharashtra State Road Trnasport Corporation, has otherwise expired, it is submitted that the petition is not pressed.

Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Since the special leave petition (C) No. 16835/2015 filed by the resondent having been dismissed as not pressed, this special leave petition is also dismissed.

The question of law is kept open.

SLP ( C) Nos. 16737-16739/2015 The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the rule regarding the term of the non-official Directors having been amended, reducing the period from three years to one year, on facts the petitions have otherwise become infructuous and they intend to pursue their remedy by challenging the amendment before the High Court.

The learned Attorney General seeks some time to respond to the above submission.

In view of the above, post on 13.04.2016.

 - 3 -

The main argument advanced by the learned Attorney General is that the Sant Rohidas Leathers Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. is a Company which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. For the removal of the Director, the provisions of the Companies Act and the Articles of Association would only apply. The learned counsel for respondents submits that being a new question raised for the first time before this Court, some time may be granted to the respondents to respond to the same.

In view of the above, post on 13.04.2016.

  (Rajni Mukhi)                               (Renu Diwan)
     Sr. P.A.                                  Court Master