Sundara A. vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 5/2021
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: KAUP010000792021
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
5/2021
Filing Date
04-01-2021
Registration No
5/2021
Registration Date
18-01-2021
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sundara A.
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
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 07-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 30-01-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Summary The petitioner's memo is accepted. The tribunal held that the burden of proving the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry lies on the management (respondent), not the employee, relying on Supreme Court precedent in Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh. The respondent is directed to lead evidence at the first instance to prove that the domestic enquiry was conducted validly and properly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petitioner's memo is accepted. The tribunal held that the burden of proving the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry lies on the management (respondent), not the employee, relying on Supreme Court precedent in Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh. The respondent is directed to lead evidence at the first instance to prove that the domestic enquiry was conducted validly and properly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts