M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD THRU AUTHORISED vs SANJAY JIVANDHAR PALIA — HCBM10141092026

Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 19-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010141092026

Filing Number

WP/8145/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Coram

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Bench Type

Single

Category

LABOUR MATTERS SINGLE BENCH ( 65 )

Sub-Category

CONTRACT LABOUR ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD THRU AUTHORISED

    Adv. CHETAN ARVIND ALAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY JIVANDHAR PALIA

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

  3. 08-May-2026

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF

    The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) adjourned Writ Petition No. 8145 of 2026 filed by Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd against Sanjay Jivandhar Palia. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections by the April 22, 2026 deadline; however, rather than refuse registration outright, the court granted a two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure defects, warning that failure to comply will result in registration refusal under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) adjourned Writ Petition No. 8145 of 2026 filed by Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd against Sanjay Jivandhar Palia. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections by the April 22, 2026 deadline; however, rather than refuse registration outright, the court granted a two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure defects, warning that failure to comply will result in registration refusal under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case