Bombay High Court
Sudhakar V. Kothari vs Smt. Radhika Prasad Tripathi And Others on 28 July, 2025
21-wp3774.25.odt 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No.3774 OF 2025
(Sudhakar V. Kothari Vs. Smt. Radhika Prasad Tripathi and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr.R.B. Puranik, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Mihir Puranik,
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Ghawde, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 28th JULY, 2025.
1. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to amend the prayer clause, restricting the relief with respect to the petitioner alone.
2. Heard Advocate Mr. R.B. Puranik, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Advocate Mr. Mihir Puranik.
3. The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 8 th May, 2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur by which recovery certificate is ordered to be issued in favour of respondent, for respective amounts with 10% interest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to the impugned order is only to the extent of petitioner, who was respondent No.3 before the Industrial Court. The primary contention is that the petitioner was not arrayed as party respondent to the original Complaint (ULP) No. 486/2000 and in absence of any averments in the original Complaint that this petitioner was incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the Company, the liability cannot be 21-wp3774.25.odt 2/2 fastened upon the petitioner only because he was Director. It is also submitted that while deciding the proceedings under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 learned Industrial Court has also awarded 10% interest which amounts to additional adjudication which is not permissible in these proceedings. In support of his submissions he relies upon the judgment in the case of Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd. And another Vs. Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar and another, reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 279. In view of these submissions, the petitioner prays for interim relief only to the extent of liability against the petitioner.
5. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.
6. Mr. A.S. Ghawde, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 5 and states that he wants to file affidavit-in-reply during the course of the day.
7. In view of this, interim stay is granted to the implementation of the impugned order dated 8.5.2025 only to the extent of petitioner herein.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) Wadode Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/07/2025 18:45:33