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
Filing Number
22/2019
Filing Date
07-Feb-2019
Registration No
22/2019
Registration Date
07-Feb-2019
Court
LABOUR COURT, NADIAD
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRAHALADBHAI KABHAIBHAI PARAMAR
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
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.
-
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
Restored
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Nov-2025
Notice To Complainant
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. 22/2019
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.
Explore other courts