PRAHALADBHAI KABHAIBHAI PARAMAR vs Helex Security and Consultant Services Advocate - B.B.Christian — 22/2019

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

RECO33C2 LC - Recovery 33C (2)

CNR: GJKH140000532019

REPLY

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

22/2019

Filing Date

07-02-2019

Registration No

22/2019

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)

PRAHALADBHAI KABHAIBHAI PARAMAR

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: 22/2019 Outcome: The petition filed by Prahaladbhai Kabhaibhai Paramar against Helex Security and Consultant Services and Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Limited is DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner's plea lacked legal merit under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The court determined that the suit/petition could not proceed as framed and that the proceedings against the respondent company should be dismissed, with costs to be borne by the petitioner accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 22/2019 Outcome: The petition filed by Prahaladbhai Kabhaibhai Paramar against Helex Security and Consultant Services and Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Limited is DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner's plea lacked legal merit under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The court determined that the suit/petition could not proceed as framed and that the proceedings against the respondent company should be dismissed, with costs to be borne by the petitioner accordingly. 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