Kondiba Katare vs Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., and One Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 29/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000482019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
48/2019
Filing Date
12-03-2019
Registration No
29/2019
Registration Date
12-03-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kondiba Katare
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 of Sangli rejected the respondent's application to amend its written statement dated 11 July 2025. The Court found that the proposed amendments relating to the factory's financial crisis and wage agreements were past events that should have been pleaded originally, not after the trial commenced following partial cross-examination of the complainant. The Court noted the respondent took three years to file its written statement and failed to diligently search for documents earlier, making the vague justification unacceptable despite the High Court's prior dismissal of similar amendment petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court of Sangli rejected the respondent's application to amend its written statement dated 11 July 2025. The Court found that the proposed amendments relating to the factory's financial crisis and wage agreements were past events that should have been pleaded originally, not after the trial commenced following partial cross-examination of the complainant. The Court noted the respondent took three years to file its written statement and failed to diligently search for documents earlier, making the vague justification unacceptable despite the High Court's prior dismissal of similar amendment petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts