ENZENE BIOSCIENCES LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE NIYAJ B. JAMADAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ORS — HCBM10141192026

Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section ---. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010141192026

Next Hearing

18th June 2026

Filing Number

WP/8152/2026

Filing Date

23-03-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )

Sub-Category

CONTRACT LABOUR ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section ---

Petitioner(s)

ENZENE BIOSCIENCES LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE NIYAJ B. JAMADAR

Adv. CHETAN ARVIND ALAI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ORS

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR PUNE

CONCILIATION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR PUNE

BHARATIYA KAMAGAR SENA (PUNE DIVISION) THR. ITS AUTHO. REPRESENTATIVE

Hearing History

Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

21-04-2026

OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED

18-06-2026

FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)

Orders

07-05-2026
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8152 of 2026 by Enzene Biosciences Limited against the State of Maharashtra and labour officials was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections by the April 21, 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects; failure to comply will result in refusal of registration 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.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8152 of 2026 by Enzene Biosciences Limited against the State of Maharashtra and labour officials was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections by the April 21, 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects; failure to comply will result in refusal of registration 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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case