Prataprao Dubal vs Vasantdada Shetkari Shakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., and One Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 5/2020
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000062020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
6/2020
Filing Date
16-01-2020
Registration No
5/2020
Registration Date
16-01-2020
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prataprao Dubal
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada Shetkari Shakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., and One Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant
Shri Datta India Pvt. Ltd.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 18-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 28-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 16-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 12-12-2025 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary COMPLAINT (ULP) NO.5 OF 2020 — Industrial Court, Sangli The Industrial Court rejected the respondent's application for amendment to the written statement. The Court held that since the case is over five years old, trial has already commenced with the complainant's evidence filed, and the respondent has not diligently moved the application—having already had a similar amendment application rejected by both this Court and the High Court. The Court found the proposed amendments relate to past events with vague justifications and determined it is neither just nor proper to allow amendment at this advanced stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary COMPLAINT (ULP) NO.5 OF 2020 — Industrial Court, Sangli The Industrial Court rejected the respondent's application for amendment to the written statement. The Court held that since the case is over five years old, trial has already commenced with the complainant's evidence filed, and the respondent has not diligently moved the application—having already had a similar amendment application rejected by both this Court and the High Court. The Court found the proposed amendments relate to past events with vague justifications and determined it is neither just nor proper to allow amendment at this advanced stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts