VINODCHANDRA KANUBHAI SONERA vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (O AND M) VALSAD CIRCLE OFFICE, DGVCL Advocate - MR DIPAK R DAVE( — LPA/363/2026
Case under Letters Patent, 1865 Section 15. Disposed: --35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE on 29th April 2026.
CNR: GJHC240257032026
Filing Number
LPA/10937/2026
Filing Date
02-04-2026
Registration No
LPA/363/2026
Registration Date
23-04-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Coram
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Bench Type
DIVISION
Category
81-LPA - LABOUR - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 ( 81 )
Sub-Category
951-LPA - LABOUR - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 17B ( 951 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VINODCHANDRA KANUBHAI SONERA
Adv. MR PARTH B THUMMAR(
Respondent(s)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (O AND M) VALSAD CIRCLE OFFICE, DGVCL Advocate - MR DIPAK R DAVE(
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
3600-FRESH MATTERS
3600-FRESH MATTERS
529-FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | 3600-FRESH MATTERS |
| 28-04-2026 | 3600-FRESH MATTERS |
| 29-04-2026 | 529-FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging an interim order granted by the Single Judge, accepting the respondent's argument that the appellant had not filed a reply. The court permitted the appellant to seek vacation of the interim order by filing an appropriate application and reply, which the Single Judge would then consider on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging an interim order granted by the Single Judge, accepting the respondent's argument that the appellant had not filed a reply. The court permitted the appellant to seek vacation of the interim order by filing an appropriate application and reply, which the Single Judge would then consider on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts