ARUN CYRIL vs SWIGGY LIMITED — 7793/2024
Case under U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABC010283052024
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
7793/2024
Filing Date
05-11-2024
Registration No
7793/2024
Registration Date
05-11-2024
Court
PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Judge
4-CCH25 III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARUN CYRIL
Adv. ANUSHA B REDDY
Respondent(s)
SWIGGY LIMITED
ANAND KRIPALU
SHIHARSHA MAJETY
SUPARNA MITRA
SHAILESH VISHNUBAHI HARIBHAKTI
SAHIL BARUA
SUMER JUNEJA
ANAND DANIEL
ASHUTOSH SHARMA
ROGER CLARKS RABALAIS
LAKSHMI NANDAN REDDY OBUL
GIRISH MENON
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CCH25 III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-12-2025 | ORDERS |
| 02-12-2025 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected Swiggy Limited's application to dismiss the plaint filed by Mr. Arun Cyril challenging his employment termination dated August 16, 2024, and the subsequent ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) expiration notice. The plaintiff sought a declaration that both notices were illegal and directions to allow exercise of vested stock options. The court held that whether the employment contract is enforceable and whether the termination complies with procedural requirements are matters requiring a full trial, and thus the plaint cannot be summarily rejected at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected Swiggy Limited's application to dismiss the plaint filed by Mr. Arun Cyril challenging his employment termination dated August 16, 2024, and the subsequent ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) expiration notice. The plaintiff sought a declaration that both notices were illegal and directions to allow exercise of vested stock options. The court held that whether the employment contract is enforceable and whether the termination complies with procedural requirements are matters requiring a full trial, and thus the plaint cannot be summarily rejected at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts