Bombay High Court
KRANTIKARI SURAKSHA RAKSHAK SANGHATANAversusJ M FINANCIAL PROPERTY AND HOLDING LTD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
An interim application cannot be used to challenge a subordinate court’s order; the appropriate remedy is to file a separate substantive petition.
Summary
The petitioners, Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana, challenged an order of the Industrial Court dated 21 June 2025 that rejected their interlocutory application for production of exemption certificates issued to M/s. Top Security Ltd under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. The Industrial Court held the documents irrelevant to the dispute with J.M. Financial Property and Holding Ltd and declined to compel their production, noting that such public documents could be obtained directly from the issuing authority. The petitioners filed an interim application in the High Court seeking to set aside that order, but the Court held that an interim application cannot be used to challenge a subordinate court’s order and that a separate substantive petition is required. The High Court affirmed the Industrial Court’s discretion, observing no patent illegality or prejudice, and dismissed the interim application, directing the petitioner to file an independent petition if they wish to pursue the matter further.
Issues considered
- Whether an interim application is maintainable to challenge an order of a subordinate Industrial Court.
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in refusing to direct production of exemption certificates on the ground of relevance.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Industrial Court’s interlocutory discretion.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim application
- Industrial Court
- interlocutory order
- document production
- relevance
- public documents
- supervisory jurisdiction
- Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act
Judgment
61-WP-17613-24+final.doc
Sayali
SAYALI
DEEPAK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
UPASANI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.02.20
17:52:06 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 17613 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13320 OF 2025
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak
Sanghatana … Petitioners
V/s.
J. M. Financial Property and Holding Ltd
and Others … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13320 OF 2025
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak
Sanghatana … Applicant
In the matter of
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak
Sanghatana … Petitioners
V/s.
J. M. Financial Property and Holding Ltd
and Others … Respondents
Mr. S. N. Pillai with Avadhesh Kumar S. for Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunkhe, Additional GP with Mr. S. L.
Babar, AGP for State- Respondent.
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, for Respondent no. 1.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
1
61-WP-17613-24+final.doc
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13320 OF 2025
1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 21 June 2025
passed by the Industrial Court. For assailing the said order, the
proper course available to the applicant is to institute a
substantive petition in accordance with law.
2. An Interim Application seeking to challenge an order
passed by a subordinate Court is not maintainable. The remedy, if
any, lies in filing an independent petition invoking the
appropriate jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Accordingly, all issues and contentions raised in the present
Interim Application are kept open to be considered and
adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
4. The applicant shall, therefore, file an independent petition
challenging the order passed by the subordinate Court. The
questions raised in the Interim Application shall remain open for
consideration in such petition.
5. Hence, the Interim Application is disposed of.
WRIT PETITION NO. 17613 OF 2024
6. The challenge in the present petition arises from the order
passed by the Industrial Court rejecting an interlocutory
application moved by the petitioner for production of certain
documents. The documents sought were exemption certificates
2
61-WP-17613-24+final.doc
allegedly issued in favour of M/s. Top Security Ltd or its security
guards, granting exemption from the provisions of the
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment
and Welfare) Act, 1981.
7. The petitioner contended that these documents were
necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and that their
production would assist the Court in determining the nature of
employment and the applicability of the statutory scheme.
8. The Industrial Court, however, declined the request. While
doing so, it recorded that the documents sought were not
relevant to the controversy involved between the parties. The
Court considered the pleadings and the issues framed, and
formed a view that the exemption certificates, even if existing,
would not materially affect the adjudication of the dispute
concerning M/s. J. M. Financial Property and Holding Ltd. The
rejection therefore rests on an assessment of relevance, which
falls within the discretion of the adjudicating authority while
regulating interlocutory proceedings.
9. At the same time, an additional aspect deserves
consideration. The documents sought by the petitioner are in the
nature of public documents, issued by a statutory authority or
government department. Such documents are ordinarily
accessible through appropriate legal procedure, including an
application made to the concerned department or authority
maintaining official records. When a document is publicly
3
61-WP-17613-24+final.doc
available through an independent statutory mechanism, the
Court is justified in expecting a party to adopt that course rather
than compelling production through interlocutory directions
against another party. The procedural law does not require the
Court to invoke coercive processes where an alternative and
equally effective method of obtaining the material exists. This
aspect further supports the view that refusal to direct production
does not result in prejudice of such a nature as would warrant
interference in supervisory jurisdiction.
10. In view of the above, the reasons assigned by the Industrial
Court cannot be said to suffer from perversity or patent illegality.
The Court has applied its mind to the question of relevance and
has exercised jurisdiction vested in it while dealing with an
interlocutory request. Mere disagreement with such an
assessment does not justify interference under writ jurisdiction,
particularly when no failure of justice is demonstrated. The order
does not disclose arbitrariness or refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
On the contrary, it reflects a plausible view based on the material
placed before the Court.
11. Therefore, no case is made out for interference. The
petition does not merit admission and stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…