Vasant Sutar vs Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and One Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 27/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000462019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
46/2019
Filing Date
12-03-2019
Registration No
27/2019
Registration Date
12-03-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vasant Sutar
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and 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 amendment to the written statement in an unfair labor practice complaint filed by Vasant Sutar against Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana. The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the factory's financial crisis and wage agreements pertained to past events occurring in 2004-2007, and the respondent's justification for late amendment—that documents were recently traced—was vague and unacceptable. Since the trial had already commenced with evidence being recorded and cross-examination underway, and given the case's five-year duration, the court determined it was neither just nor proper to allow amendment at that advanced stage. 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 an unfair labor practice complaint filed by Vasant Sutar against Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana. The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the factory's financial crisis and wage agreements pertained to past events occurring in 2004-2007, and the respondent's justification for late amendment—that documents were recently traced—was vague and unacceptable. Since the trial had already commenced with evidence being recorded and cross-examination underway, and given the case's five-year duration, the court determined it was neither just nor proper to allow amendment at that 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