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

REPLY

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

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

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

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

LABOUR COURT, NADIAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case