CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD. vs KALPESH MARAIYA Advocate - P J MAHARAJA — 223/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33/2/B. Status: For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
APP IT - APPLICATION I.T.
CNR: GJAH170004612024
Next Hearing
17th July 2026
Filing Number
223/2024
Filing Date
17-09-2024
Registration No
223/2024
Registration Date
17-09-2024
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD.
Adv. P I SHAH
Respondent(s)
KALPESH MARAIYA Advocate - P J MAHARAJA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Evidence of Applicant
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-05-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 18-04-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 13-03-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 12-02-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant |
| 31-01-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Kalpesh Maraiya (Application 223/2024) Outcome: The approval application filed by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to validate the dismissal of employee Kalpesh Maraiya, was REJECTED/DISMISSED. The court also rejected the employer's request for court-conducted inquiry into the dismissal allegations, finding the application procedurally defective and contrary to labor law requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Kalpesh Maraiya (Application 223/2024) Outcome: The approval application filed by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to validate the dismissal of employee Kalpesh Maraiya, was REJECTED/DISMISSED. The court also rejected the employer's request for court-conducted inquiry into the dismissal allegations, finding the application procedurally defective and contrary to labor law requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts