Hemang Jadavji Shah, Director Of Good Value Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Ms. Reena Pravinchandra Doshi Advocate - Nafees Ahmad — 5/2025

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 30(2). Status: Say. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

Say Next hearing 27-Mar-2026 this date has passed

Review Appln. ULP

CNR: MHIC010008112025

Filing Number

939/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

5/2025

Registration Date

10-Dec-2025

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

6-Member

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 30(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Hemang Jadavji Shah, Director Of Good Value Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

    Adv. Adv. H. Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ms. Reena Pravinchandra Doshi Advocate - Nafees Ahmad

Case History

  1. 27-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Say

    Member

  3. 27-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Member

  4. 19-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Member

  5. 02-Jan-2026

    Reply

    Member

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    Order below Exh---View PDF

    Summary: The Industrial Court, Maharashtra rejected the applicant Hemang Jadhavji Shah's Review Application (ULP) No. 5 of 2025 seeking to keep an interim relief order dated 23.09.2025 in abeyance. The court found no justifiable reason to suspend the order, noting that the applicant had ample opportunity to challenge it earlier and the reason cited (potential multiplicity of litigation) was already rejected in the main proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Industrial Court, Maharashtra rejected the applicant Hemang Jadhavji Shah's Review Application (ULP) No. 5 of 2025 seeking to keep an interim relief order dated 23.09.2025 in abeyance. The court found no justifiable reason to suspend the order, noting that the applicant had ample opportunity to challenge it earlier and the reason cited (potential multiplicity of litigation) was already rejected in the main proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case