Sampat Shamrao Suryawanshi vs Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana and other one Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 26/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28(1). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000442019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
44/2019
Filing Date
07-03-2019
Registration No
26/2019
Registration Date
07-03-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sampat Shamrao Suryawanshi
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana and other one 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 to amend its written statement in a 2019 unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the proposed amendments related to past events and that the respondent failed to provide adequate justification for the delay, noting the case is over five years old and trial has already commenced. The High Court had previously dismissed similar amendment applications, observing that the respondent took three years to file its written statement without demonstrating any specific triggering event for discovering the documents. 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 to amend its written statement in a 2019 unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the proposed amendments related to past events and that the respondent failed to provide adequate justification for the delay, noting the case is over five years old and trial has already commenced. The High Court had previously dismissed similar amendment applications, observing that the respondent took three years to file its written statement without demonstrating any specific triggering event for discovering the documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts