MS LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPMS /621/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 25th March 2026.
CNR: UKHC010038222026
Filing Number
WPMS /2030/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
WPMS /621/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
MISC MATTERS ( 47 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MS LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Adv. ESHAN SACHDEVA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
UTTARAKHAND BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
Adv. RAHUL CONSUL,HARI MOHAN BHATIA
LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Adv. C.S.C.
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Adv. C.S.C.
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Adv. C.S.C.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 25-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 24-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of the writ petition filed by Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd challenging a Labour Cess recovery notice, directing the Uttarakhand Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board to pass a reasoned order within two months after considering the replies submitted by both the petitioner and the original construction contractor (who conducted work in 2005), in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of the writ petition filed by Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd challenging a Labour Cess recovery notice, directing the Uttarakhand Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board to pass a reasoned order within two months after considering the replies submitted by both the petitioner and the original construction contractor (who conducted work in 2005), in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts