RAIJIBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR vs Helex Security and Consultant Services Advocate - B.B.Christian — 20/2019

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 (c) (2). Status: REPLY. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

RECO33C2 LC - Recovery 33C (2)

CNR: GJKH140000512019

REPLY

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

20/2019

Filing Date

07-02-2019

Registration No

20/2019

Registration Date

07-02-2019

Court

LABOUR COURT, NADIAD

Judge

1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 (c) (2)

Petitioner(s)

RAIJIBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR

Adv. D.H.Shah

Respondent(s)

Helex Security and Consultant Services Advocate - B.B.Christian

Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Lmited

Adv. M.G.MEMON

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

08-05-2026

REPLY

24-04-2026

REPLY

01-04-2026

REPLY

23-03-2026

REPLY

12-03-2026

REPLY

Interim Orders

08-03-2022
JUDEGEMENT
01-04-2026
ORDER

In Case 20/2019, petitioner Raijibhai Babubhai Parmar's petition against Helex Security and Consultant Services and Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Limited was dismissed. The court found that the petition regarding recovery of dues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was not maintainable, as proceedings related to corporate debt recovery must follow IBC procedures rather than civil court jurisdiction. The respondent company's petition to reject the claim was allowed, and the court directed that all related petitions be withdrawn. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

In Case 20/2019, petitioner Raijibhai Babubhai Parmar's petition against Helex Security and Consultant Services and Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Limited was dismissed. The court found that the petition regarding recovery of dues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was not maintainable, as proceedings related to corporate debt recovery must follow IBC procedures rather than civil court jurisdiction. The respondent company's petition to reject the claim was allowed, and the court directed that all related petitions be withdrawn. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

LABOUR COURT, NADIAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case