TECHNOFORGE LTD. vs SATYAVAAN KUSHVAHA Advocate - D.S.JOG — 7/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 26A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st May 2026.
MISC26A LC - Misc. Application - Under Rule-26A
CNR: GJBH100007812025
Filing Number
7/2025
Filing Date
28-07-2025
Registration No
7/2025
Registration Date
28-07-2025
Court
LABOUR COURT, BHARUCH
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
01st May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TECHNOFORGE LTD.
Adv. N R VASAVA
Respondent(s)
SATYAVAAN KUSHVAHA Advocate - D.S.JOG
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Arguement of Applicant
For Arguement of Applicant
For Arguement of Applicant
For Reply of opponent
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-04-2026 | For Arguement of Applicant |
| 12-03-2026 | For Arguement of Applicant |
| 08-01-2026 | For Arguement of Applicant |
| 24-11-2025 | For Reply of opponent |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Labour Court in Bharuch condoned a 167-day delay in filing an application under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding that the delay was not intentional but resulted from TechnoForge Ltd.'s liquidation proceedings. The court partially allowed the company's application, directing it to pay ₹5,000 as costs to the respondent Satyavaan Kushvaha, while setting aside an ex-parte recovery order and remitting the original case for fresh hearing to ensure both parties receive adequate opportunity to present their defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Labour Court in Bharuch condoned a 167-day delay in filing an application under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding that the delay was not intentional but resulted from TechnoForge Ltd.'s liquidation proceedings. The court partially allowed the company's application, directing it to pay ₹5,000 as costs to the respondent Satyavaan Kushvaha, while setting aside an ex-parte recovery order and remitting the original case for fresh hearing to ensure both parties receive adequate opportunity to present their defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts