THE MANAGER/DIRECTOR GSP CROP SCIENCE LIMITED vs BHARATBHAI RAYSINH GOHIL Advocate - null( — SCA/7341/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Status: 192-Notice & Adjourned Matters. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
CNR: GJHC240232152026
Filing Number
SCA/9860/2026
Filing Date
25-Mar-2026
Registration No
SCA/7341/2026
Registration Date
11-May-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai
Coram
Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai
Bench Type
SINGLE
Category
321-SJ - LABOUR - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 ( 321 )
Sub-Category
1290-SJ - LABOUR - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - AGAINST AWARD ( 1290 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Last updated 09-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE MANAGER/DIRECTOR GSP CROP SCIENCE LIMITED
Adv. MS PRACHI UPADHYAY(
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHARATBHAI RAYSINH GOHIL Advocate - null(
Case History
-
15-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-Jun-2026
192-Notice & Adjourned Matters
Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice N.v.anjaria,honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. DesaiView PDF
In SCA/7341/2026 (High Court of Gujarat), Justice Devan M. Desai adjourned the matter to 15.06.2026 after hearing the petitioner's counsel. The court tagged the present Special Civil Applications (7341, 7350, 7363, and 7387 of 2026) with the related SCA No.4448 of 2026, finding all 11 applications arise from common questions requiring further consideration. Direct service was permitted as sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
3600-Fresh Matters
Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai
-
06-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. SCA/7341/2026
In SCA/7341/2026 (High Court of Gujarat), Justice Devan M. Desai adjourned the matter to 15.06.2026 after hearing the petitioner's counsel. The court tagged the present Special Civil Applications (7341, 7350, 7363, and 7387 of 2026) with the related SCA No.4448 of 2026, finding all 11 applications arise from common questions requiring further consideration. Direct service was permitted as sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts