Sadashiv Hanamantappa Girani, vs The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by Divisional Controller, — 1/2020

Case under U/s. 10(4-a) of I.d. Karnataka Amendment Act. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.

KID - Karnataka Industrical Dispute

CNR: KAUK010000192020

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

10th July 2026

Filing Number

1/2020

Filing Date

02-01-2020

Registration No

1/2020

Registration Date

03-01-2020

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR

Judge

519-PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT U.K, KARWAR

Acts & Sections

U/s. 10(4-a) of I.d. Karnataka Amendment Act

Petitioner(s)

Sadashiv Hanamantappa Girani,

Adv. M.H.Bhat

Respondent(s)

The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by Divisional Controller,

Hearing History

Judge: 519-PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT U.K, KARWAR

17-04-2026

EVIDENCE

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE

20-02-2026

EVIDENCE

09-01-2026

EVIDENCE

12-12-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

25-03-2022
Deposition
10-06-2022
Deposition

The court order dated 10-06-2022 in case KID 1/2020 (Sadashiv Hanamantappa Girani v. NWKRTC Management) records the examination of a witness. The court found multiple procedural irregularities in the inquiry, including improper appointment of the inquiry officer who was an employee of the respondent organization, failure to provide documents to the petitioner, and non-compliance with procedural rules. The court directed continuation of the proceedings and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and present evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court order dated 10-06-2022 in case KID 1/2020 (Sadashiv Hanamantappa Girani v. NWKRTC Management) records the examination of a witness. The court found multiple procedural irregularities in the inquiry, including improper appointment of the inquiry officer who was an employee of the respondent organization, failure to provide documents to the petitioner, and non-compliance with procedural rules. The court directed continuation of the proceedings and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and present evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case