Balaso Ganpati Patil vs Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar karkhana Ltd, Sangli Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 22/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28(1). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000402019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
40/2019
Filing Date
28-02-2019
Registration No
22/2019
Registration Date
28-02-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balaso Ganpati Patil
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar karkhana Ltd, Sangli 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
Case Summary Case: Complaint (ULP) No. 22 of 2019 | Industrial Court, Sangli Outcome: The respondent's application for amendment to the written statement is rejected. The court found the respondent had taken three years to file the written statement, provided vague justifications for missing documents, and the proposed amendments related to past events. Additionally, trial had already commenced and the High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions challenging an earlier rejection of an amendment application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Complaint (ULP) No. 22 of 2019 | Industrial Court, Sangli Outcome: The respondent's application for amendment to the written statement is rejected. The court found the respondent had taken three years to file the written statement, provided vague justifications for missing documents, and the proposed amendments related to past events. Additionally, trial had already commenced and the High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions challenging an earlier rejection of an amendment application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts