9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri S.N. Kantawala i/b. Brijesh Pathak, for the Petitioner. Shri D.N. Salvi, for the Respondent. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. [Order]. - P.C. : Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners by this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Cr .P.C. is challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded the matter for fresh adjudication. However, in the meantime, Respondent No. 3, after the Settlement Commission rejected the applications of the petitioners herein, filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, on 7th January, 2010 and process was issued on the said complaint. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint was quashed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that in the event, the Settlement Commission rejects the applications filed by the petitioners herein, liberty may be granted to the respondents to file a fresh complaint or in the alternative, the said complaint filed by the respondent may be stayed pending further orders by the Settlement Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to file a fresh complaint, in the event, any adverse order is passed by the settlement commission on the application filed by the petitioners herein. The petitioners shall undertake not to raise any objection in respect of the second complaint which is filed. The Settlement Commission may decide the applications, expeditiously and in accordance with law. 8. Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
