Ms. Reena Pravinchandra Doshi vs M/s. Good Value Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - Vaidyanathan-2/A S Singh- — 238/2025
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28/30. Status: Hearing below Exh._______. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP1
CNR: MHIC010005352025
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
624/2025
Filing Date
28-08-2025
Registration No
238/2025
Registration Date
28-08-2025
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
6-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ms. Reena Pravinchandra Doshi
Adv. Nafees Ahmad
Respondent(s)
M/s. Good Value Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - Vaidyanathan-2/A S Singh-
Mr. Hemang Jadavji Shah- Director
Adv. Vaidyanathan-2/A S Singh-
Mr. Mehul Jadavji Shah- Director
Adv. Vaidyanathan-2/A S Singh-3
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Member
Hearing below Exh._______
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing below Exh._______ |
| 09-02-2026 | Written Statement |
| 12-01-2026 | Written Statement |
| 08-12-2025 | Written Statement |
| 29-11-2025 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court rejected Respondent No. 2's application seeking a four-week stay of the Court's order dated 23.09.2025. The Court found no valid grounds for the stay, noting that sufficient time had already elapsed since the original order and the application appeared to be filed merely to delay proceedings. The earlier order requiring payment of wages to the complainant remains in force. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court rejected Respondent No. 2's application seeking a four-week stay of the Court's order dated 23.09.2025. The Court found no valid grounds for the stay, noting that sufficient time had already elapsed since the original order and the application appeared to be filed merely to delay proceedings. The earlier order requiring payment of wages to the complainant remains in force. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts