INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED, BUTIBORI, NAGPUR, THR. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY vs STATE OF MAHA., DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES, LABOUR AND ENERGY, MUMBAI, THR. PRIN. SECRETARY AND ORS — WP/4069/2025

Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 09-Aug-2025

CNR: HCBM040221582025

Filing Number

WP/16048/2025

Filing Date

16-Jul-2025

Registration No

WP/4069/2025

Registration Date

30-Jul-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED, BUTIBORI, NAGPUR, THR. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

    Adv. MIHIR R PURANIK,YASHODHAN V. CHAVAN,YASHODHAN V. CHAVAN, ,NISHANT HAZARE,YASHODHAN V. CHAVAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHA., DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES, LABOUR AND ENERGY, MUMBAI, THR. PRIN. SECRETARY AND ORS

    Adv. ,ARCHANA P. MURREY,HEMLATA S. DHANDE,SUDHAKAR BALIRAMJI DHANDE 1123

  2. 2.PRADEEP BHIMCHARAN MOHANTI

  3. 3.GAJANAN SITARAM MASKAR

  4. 4.SUSHIL SHESHMANI TIWARI

  5. 5.DINBANDHU VASHISHTA

  6. 6.PRADEEP RAMDAS LOKHARE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

    Case Summary: Indoworth India Limited v. State of Maharashtra Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by Indoworth India Limited challenging the government's rejection of its closure application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner's closure application was incomplete and not submitted in compliance with Rule 82-B (requiring submission in triplicate in English and Marathi), and the 60-day deemed permission period under Section 25-O(3) had not expired when the rejection order was passed on 11.04.2025 (the application was received by the competent authority only on 14.02.2025). Additionally, the application sought retrospective closure from 20.01.2025 despite being submitted on 31.01.2025, violating the requirement for 90 days' prior notice. The court noted the company had not clarified its position on wage payments to 275 employees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    For Pronouncement Of Judgment At 10.30 A.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    For Admission-Labour And Industrial

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    For Admission-Labour And Industrial

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  9. 02-Sep-2025

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  10. 09-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 31-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  12. 16-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/4069/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Indoworth India Limited v. State of Maharashtra Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by Indoworth India Limited challenging the government's rejection of its closure application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner's closure application was incomplete and not submitted in compliance with Rule 82-B (requiring submission in triplicate in English and Marathi), and the 60-day deemed permission period under Section 25-O(3) had not expired when the rejection order was passed on 11.04.2025 (the application was received by the competent authority only on 14.02.2025). Additionally, the application sought retrospective closure from 20.01.2025 despite being submitted on 31.01.2025, violating the requirement for 90 days' prior notice. The court noted the company had not clarified its position on wage payments to 275 employees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case