Vidyadhar Baburao Ashtekar vs Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar karkhana and other Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 21/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28(1). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000392019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
39/2019
Filing Date
28-02-2019
Registration No
21/2019
Registration Date
28-02-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vidyadhar Baburao Ashtekar
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar karkhana and other Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant
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
Summary The Industrial Court, Sangli rejected the respondent's application seeking amendment to the written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the respondent, who filed its written statement nearly three years after the complaint was filed in 2019, failed to diligently pursue the amendment and that trial had already commenced with evidence and cross-examination underway. The High Court had previously dismissed the respondent's writ petition challenging an earlier rejection of a similar amendment application, observing that the justification for not including necessary pleadings in the original written statement was unacceptable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court, Sangli rejected the respondent's application seeking amendment to the written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the respondent, who filed its written statement nearly three years after the complaint was filed in 2019, failed to diligently pursue the amendment and that trial had already commenced with evidence and cross-examination underway. The High Court had previously dismissed the respondent's writ petition challenging an earlier rejection of a similar amendment application, observing that the justification for not including necessary pleadings in the original written statement was unacceptable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts