Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7912 (CHH)

BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. v. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA (Died) Through Lrs.

WPL/3743/2011 · 2025-06-17

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:25152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 3743 of 2011 1. Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Whole Time Director, Through Its Authorized Officer And Attorney Holder, Balco District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-02-2021 And (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-05-2024 Is Application For Substitution Of Legal Representative Of Respondent No. 1 (It Should Be Resp. No. 1 A- Smt. Kailash Sharma)) 1.1 - (A). Smt. Kailash Sharma (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-05-2024. 1.2 - (B) Sanjeev Sarad Sharma S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma Age Not Known, R/o Plot No. 223, Koshabadi Near Nirmala School, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Rajeev Sarad Sharma S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma Age Not Known, R/o Plot No. 223, Koshabadi Near Nirmala School, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Court (Its Camp Sitting At Bilaspur) Through Its Registrar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Labour Court Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1A to 1C : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.18 17:17:28 +0530 2 Order on Board 18. 06.2025 1. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise objection with regard to applicability of those documents in the pending case. 2. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate would oppose. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise certain objection; therefore, I am inclined to allow the prayer made by Mr. Sinha. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 5. The respondents would be at liberty to raise all available grounds. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant