38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
International

Indian Restaurant In Dublin Ordered To Pay 3,000 Over Refusal To Serve Indian Customer

By LawStreet News Network      26 August, 2019 11:30 AM      0 Comments
Indian Restaurant In Dublin Ordered To Pay 3,000 Over Refusal To Serve Indian Customer

An Indian restaurant in Dublin has been ordered to pay 3,000 (2,745) by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) after it observed that the restaurant owner refused a man service because he was an Indian.

The discrimination case was filed by Mayank Bhatnagar before WRC. He told the commission that he had entered Ravis Kitchen in July last year, with the intention of having lunch with two colleagues.

He claimed he asked the restaurants owner, who was handing out menus, how long the lunch would take because the group had a limited time, according to The Irish Times.

The customer alleged Ravi Shukla, the owner, then asked him if he was an Indian.

Mr. Bhatnagar claimed the proprietor said he did not serve Indians and asked him to leave.

He also claimed that Mr. Shukla began shouting about how his family had suffered before the group left.

His evidence was uncontested and Ravi Shukla, who is from northern India, told The Irish Times he had not received a notification to appear.

However, during the hearing Marie Flynn, the WRC judge, said she was satisfied that the respondent was properly on notice of the time, date and location of the adjudication hearing.

Ms. Flynn then proceeded to rule, on the basis of Mr. Bhatnagars uncontested evidence that the customer had been discriminated against on the basis of race, contrary to the Equal Status Acts.

I am satisfied that he has established that he was treated less favourably than a person who was not Indian would be treated in a comparable situation, she said adding that I find therefore that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the race ground.

The judge said, Once the complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent.

As Mr. Shukla was not present at the hearing, the evidence was not challenged.

The restaurant owner said he intended to appeal the ruling and said he was from India himself.

I refused to serve him because he was unhappy with how long the lunch would take and he wanted a buffet and we didnt have a buffet, he said.

It is a very one-sided ruling. I have lots of Indian customers and I have never refused them service because they are from India, he further added.

(Source Independent)



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email