RAMESHBHAI SURSANGHBHAI PARMAR vs Helex Security and Consultant Services Advocate - B.B.Christian — 21/2019
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 (C) (2). Status: REPLY. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
RECO33C2 LC - Recovery 33C (2)
CNR: GJKH140000522019
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
21/2019
Filing Date
07-02-2019
Registration No
21/2019
Registration Date
07-02-2019
Court
LABOUR COURT, NADIAD
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMESHBHAI SURSANGHBHAI 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
REPLY
REPLY
REPLY
REPLY
REPLY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | REPLY |
| 24-04-2026 | REPLY |
| 01-04-2026 | REPLY |
| 23-03-2026 | REPLY |
| 12-03-2026 | REPLY |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 21/2019 - Rameshbhai Sursanghbhai Parmar v. Helex Security and Consultant Services & Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Ltd The petitioner's plea against respondent companies was ALLOWED and DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner's current petition lacked legal merit under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The court held that since a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was already initiated against the corporate debtor by another creditor on 09.07.2024, and the petitioner had already filed claims in that proceeding which were admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional, the petitioner must pursue their relief through that established process rather than through separate judicial proceedings, which would create inconsistent orders and jurisdictional conflicts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 21/2019 - Rameshbhai Sursanghbhai Parmar v. Helex Security and Consultant Services & Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Ltd The petitioner's plea against respondent companies was ALLOWED and DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner's current petition lacked legal merit under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The court held that since a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was already initiated against the corporate debtor by another creditor on 09.07.2024, and the petitioner had already filed claims in that proceeding which were admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional, the petitioner must pursue their relief through that established process rather than through separate judicial proceedings, which would create inconsistent orders and jurisdictional conflicts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts