Ranjana Yadav vs Clifford Lobo — 3/2025
Case under Employee's Compensation Act 1923 Section 8,10. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.
ECA - Employees Compensation Applica
CNR: KAUP020017882025
Next Hearing
17th March 2026
Filing Number
3/2025
Filing Date
13-06-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
20-06-2025
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ranjana Yadav
Adv. PRADEEP P.J.
Rishab Rep. by the Natural gurdian i.e, Petitioner No.1
Ayansh Yadav Rep. by Natural Gurdian i.e., Petitioner No.1
Avisha Rep. by Natural guardian i.e., Petitioner No.1
Respondent(s)
Clifford Lobo
National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 20-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 22-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
In this ECA (Execution Case Appeal) 3/2025 order dated 18-12-2025, a witness testified regarding employment details and salary payments made to an employee named Arun Kumar. The court examined various documents including authorization letters, ID proofs, bank statements, and employment records. The order records the witness's testimony about the company's wage structure, payment methods, and employment practices, with the court noting that no further cross-examination was required and the case appears to be in the evidence collection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In this ECA (Execution Case Appeal) 3/2025 order dated 18-12-2025, a witness testified regarding employment details and salary payments made to an employee named Arun Kumar. The court examined various documents including authorization letters, ID proofs, bank statements, and employment records. The order records the witness's testimony about the company's wage structure, payment methods, and employment practices, with the court noting that no further cross-examination was required and the case appears to be in the evidence collection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts