Rathnakar Shenoy vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 4/2021

Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.

Ref.10.1.C.OF ID ACT

CNR: KAUP010000782021

HEARING

Next Hearing

13th March 2026

Filing Number

4/2021

Filing Date

04-01-2021

Registration No

4/2021

Registration Date

18-01-2021

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI

Judge

507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A

Petitioner(s)

Rathnakar Shenoy

Adv. NAGARAJ.K

Respondent(s)

The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor

Hearing History

Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

06-03-2026

HEARING

26-02-2026

HEARING

17-02-2026

HEARING

07-02-2026

ORDERS

30-01-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

15-07-2021
Issue
17-08-2021
Issue
22-07-2022
Orders
16-11-2022
Deposition
12-04-2023
Deposition
02-06-2023
Deposition
15-07-2023
Deposition

Summary: In this Revision Petition (R.W. 1) case bearing I.D 4/2021, heard on 15-07-2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, the court examined mobile/laptop bills and related documents presented by the respondent's counsel. The petitioner's counsel objected that certain documents (Marks A-39 and A-40) and evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were not properly presented during the internal inquiry. The court found the objection regarding non-presentation of documents during internal inquiry to be without merit, and the revision petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In this Revision Petition (R.W. 1) case bearing I.D 4/2021, heard on 15-07-2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, the court examined mobile/laptop bills and related documents presented by the respondent's counsel. The petitioner's counsel objected that certain documents (Marks A-39 and A-40) and evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were not properly presented during the internal inquiry. The court found the objection regarding non-presentation of documents during internal inquiry to be without merit, and the revision petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case