Namdev krushna Jagtap vs Managing Director, Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana and other Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 33/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28(9)(10). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000762019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
76/2019
Filing Date
18-03-2019
Registration No
33/2019
Registration Date
18-03-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Namdev krushna Jagtap
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 to amend its written statement dated 11 July 2025. The court found that the respondent waited over three years to file the written statement and unreasonably delayed seeking amendment until trial had already commenced with the complainant's cross-examination, making the amendment application not diligent. The High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions, noting that all proposed amendments pertained to past events from 2004-2017 and that the respondent's justification for late filing 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 to amend its written statement dated 11 July 2025. The court found that the respondent waited over three years to file the written statement and unreasonably delayed seeking amendment until trial had already commenced with the complainant's cross-examination, making the amendment application not diligent. The High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions, noting that all proposed amendments pertained to past events from 2004-2017 and that the respondent's justification for late filing 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