BHARAT R. YADAV vs EDICON MINING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. AND AUBREY DCUNHA Advocate - R V Paranjpe — WP/3516/2018
Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020311752017
Next Hearing
07th February 2018
Filing Number
WP/3657/2017
Filing Date
20-12-2017
Registration No
WP/3516/2018
Registration Date
12-12-2018
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHARAT R. YADAV
Adv. Ankit Kulkarni,PETITIONER ,PETITIONER , ,Bhavana Mhatre,PETITIONER
Respondent(s)
EDICON MINING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. AND AUBREY DCUNHA Advocate - R V Paranjpe
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
FOR REJECTION [ORIGINAL SIDE MATTERS]
FOR FINAL HEARING
AT 3.00 P.M.
FOR FINAL HEARING
FOR FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-02-2018 | FOR REJECTION [ORIGINAL SIDE MATTERS] |
| 10-07-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
| 27-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
| 06-02-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed Bharat R. Yadav's writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of his complaint for full implementation of a 2012 arbitration award. The court found that Yadav had admitted during cross-examination to receiving 50% back-wages (Rs. 2,34,955) and crucially failed to report for duty after reinstatement, thus warranting no interference with the lower court's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed Bharat R. Yadav's writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of his complaint for full implementation of a 2012 arbitration award. The court found that Yadav had admitted during cross-examination to receiving 50% back-wages (Rs. 2,34,955) and crucially failed to report for duty after reinstatement, thus warranting no interference with the lower court's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts