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
Filing Number
20/2019
Filing Date
07-Feb-2019
Registration No
20/2019
Registration Date
07-Feb-2019
Court
LABOUR COURT, NADIAD
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAIJIBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR
Adv. D.H.Shah
Respondent(s)
-
1.Helex Security and Consultant Services Advocate - B.B.Christian
-
2.Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Lmited
Adv. M.G.MEMON
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
08-May-2026
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Apr-2026
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
01-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
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The respondent company's petition to reject the claim was allowed, and the court directed that all related petitions be withdrawn.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.
-
01-Apr-2026
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Mar-2026
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
12-Mar-2026
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-Feb-2026
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
30-Dec-2025
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Nov-2025
Notice To Complainant
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Nov-2025
Restored
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Mar-2022
JudegementView PDF
-
08-Mar-2022
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Feb-2022
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Jan-2022
For Argument of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
09-Dec-2021
For Argument of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-Oct-2021
For Argument of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
14-Oct-2021
For Argument of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Sep-2021
For Argument of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-Aug-2021
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
03-Jun-2021
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Mar-2021
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Feb-2021
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Dec-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
07-Dec-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-Sep-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
06-Aug-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
11-Jun-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
28-May-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Apr-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
19-Mar-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
27-Feb-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
30-Jan-2020
For Other evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
02-Jan-2020
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-Dec-2019
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
14-Nov-2019
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
03-Oct-2019
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-Sep-2019
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Jul-2019
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Jun-2019
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
07-May-2019
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
09-Apr-2019
Reply
Judge, Labour Court
-
19-Mar-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Feb-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 20/2019
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.
Explore other courts