GARDEN SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED (NEW NAME) vs SHRI CHHOTUBHAI MOTIRAM Advocate - S T CHAUDHARI — 41/2024

Case under Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 84(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 22nd May 2026.

MISCAPP-IC - MISC. APPLICATION (I.C.)

CNR: GJSR130001412024

Case disposed

Filing Number

41/2024

Filing Date

25-10-2024

Registration No

41/2024

Registration Date

25-10-2024

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, SURAT

Judge

2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

Decision Date

22nd May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 84(2)

Petitioner(s)

GARDEN SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED (NEW NAME)

Adv. J.D.Chalishajar

Respondent(s)

SHRI CHHOTUBHAI MOTIRAM Advocate - S T CHAUDHARI

Hearing History

Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

22-05-2026

Disposed

08-05-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-05-2026

REPLY

01-05-2026

REPLY

10-04-2026

REPLY

Final Orders / Judgements

22-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: Misc. Appli. (I.C.) No. 41/2024 The Industrial Court of Surat granted Garden Silk Mills Private Limited's application to condone a delay of 3 months and 7 days in filing an appeal under Section 84(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court found the delay was caused by internal administrative reasons and legal consultation, not willful misconduct, and that denying condonement would prevent adjudication on merits. The court ordered the company to pay ₹5,001 to the respondent (worker) as costs within 30 days before the appeal could proceed for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Misc. Appli. (I.C.) No. 41/2024 The Industrial Court of Surat granted Garden Silk Mills Private Limited's application to condone a delay of 3 months and 7 days in filing an appeal under Section 84(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court found the delay was caused by internal administrative reasons and legal consultation, not willful misconduct, and that denying condonement would prevent adjudication on merits. The court ordered the company to pay ₹5,001 to the respondent (worker) as costs within 30 days before the appeal could proceed for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case