Case 2302797/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Chettry v Sunil Kumar Sodagam — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302797/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Chettry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 15 April 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant issuing a strike-out warning because the claim was not being actively pursued. The Claimant was given 14 days to respond and to confirm whether he had applied to have the Respondent company restored to the Register of Companies, or, if not, to explain why not.
The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant did not comply with that order and did not contact the Tribunal as directed. On that basis, it struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for failure to comply with an order and failure to actively pursue the claim. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) because the Claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order and failed actively to pursue the claim. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.