THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS R. A. MALANDKAR vs MR. SURYAKANT BHAGWAN TAWADE ANDS ORS Advocate - Shane Clifford Cardoz, RESP ,RESP ,Adv Sameer Chaudankar,Shane Clifford Cardoz — WP/11345/2012
Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 30th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010452182012
Next Hearing
14th January 2013
Filing Number
WP/30883/2012
Filing Date
02-11-2012
Registration No
WP/11345/2012
Registration Date
05-12-2012
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS R. A. MALANDKAR
Respondent(s)
MR. SURYAKANT BHAGWAN TAWADE ANDS ORS Advocate - Shane Clifford Cardoz, RESP ,RESP ,Adv Sameer Chaudankar,Shane Clifford Cardoz
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-01-2013 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH |
| 17-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-02-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 09-01-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/11345/2012 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the MCGM's writ petition and quashed the Industrial Court's decision, holding that the respondent failed to establish grounds for correcting his recorded date of birth (2 June 1952 vs. claimed 15 April 1955) after 33 years of service. The court found the respondent's reliance on a school-leaving certificate insufficient to override his admitted acceptance of the service record at appointment, the 20-year delay beyond the Corporation's 1986 deadline for corrections, and his silence throughout his career. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/11345/2012 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the MCGM's writ petition and quashed the Industrial Court's decision, holding that the respondent failed to establish grounds for correcting his recorded date of birth (2 June 1952 vs. claimed 15 April 1955) after 33 years of service. The court found the respondent's reliance on a school-leaving certificate insufficient to override his admitted acceptance of the service record at appointment, the 20-year delay beyond the Corporation's 1986 deadline for corrections, and his silence throughout his career. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts