GARLICK ENGINEERING ( AN ERSTWHILE CLOSED DIV. OF M/S. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. ) AND ORS vs SURESH H. KARALE AND ORS — IA/3054/2026

Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010186732026

Filing Number

IA/10857/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

IA/3054/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Bench Type

Single

Category

LABOUR MATTERS SINGLE BENCH ( 65 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 13 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GARLICK ENGINEERING ( AN ERSTWHILE CLOSED DIV. OF M/S. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. ) AND ORS

    Adv. sujeet premanand salkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SURESH H. KARALE AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

    Case Summary: IA/3054/2026 The Bombay High Court allowed Garlick Engineering's interim applications seeking withdrawal of Rs. 25 lakhs deposited pursuant to an April 22, 2019 order and return of furnished bank guarantees. Judge Amit Borkar found that applicants made out a sufficient case for relief, granting prayer clause "a" and also allowing prayer clause "b" concerning a typographical error, despite respondent's assertion of intent to challenge the underlying order before the Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3054/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: IA/3054/2026 The Bombay High Court allowed Garlick Engineering's interim applications seeking withdrawal of Rs. 25 lakhs deposited pursuant to an April 22, 2019 order and return of furnished bank guarantees. Judge Amit Borkar found that applicants made out a sufficient case for relief, granting prayer clause "a" and also allowing prayer clause "b" concerning a typographical error, despite respondent's assertion of intent to challenge the underlying order before the Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case