GARDEN SILK MILLS PVT.LTD. ERSTWHILE GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. vs CHHOTUBHAI MANIBHAI Advocate - S T CHAUDHARI — 4/2025
Case under Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 84(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 22nd May 2026.
MISCAPP-IC - MISC. APPLICATION (I.C.)
CNR: GJSR130000092025
Filing Number
4/2025
Filing Date
24-01-2025
Registration No
4/2025
Registration Date
24-01-2025
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SURAT
Judge
2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GARDEN SILK MILLS PVT.LTD. ERSTWHILE GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD.
Adv. M.V.PATEL
Respondent(s)
CHHOTUBHAI MANIBHAI Advocate - S T CHAUDHARI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
REPLY
REPLY
REPLY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 07-05-2026 | REPLY |
| 01-05-2026 | REPLY |
| 10-04-2026 | REPLY |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Misc. Appli. (I.C.) No. 04/2025 Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhotubhai Manibhai The Industrial Court at Surat allowed Garden Silk Mills' application for condonation of 92 days' delay in filing an appeal under Section 84(2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The court found the delay justified due to internal reorganization at the company, illness of responsible personnel, inadequate documentation from prior counsel, and need for legal consultation—all circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The appeal was admitted on the condition that the company pay costs of ₹5,001 to the respondent within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Misc. Appli. (I.C.) No. 04/2025 Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhotubhai Manibhai The Industrial Court at Surat allowed Garden Silk Mills' application for condonation of 92 days' delay in filing an appeal under Section 84(2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The court found the delay justified due to internal reorganization at the company, illness of responsible personnel, inadequate documentation from prior counsel, and need for legal consultation—all circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The appeal was admitted on the condition that the company pay costs of ₹5,001 to the respondent within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts