Arun Ramchandra Uplavikar vs Vasantdada Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd and other one Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 44/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28 (9) (10). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000872019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
87/2019
Filing Date
03-04-2019
Registration No
44/2019
Registration Date
03-04-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arun Ramchandra Uplavikar
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada Sah.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd 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 to amend their written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The court found that the respondent, despite having over three years to file the written statement, sought amendment only after recently tracing documents—constituting past events that should have been pleaded originally. Since the trial had already commenced with evidence and cross-examination, the court deemed it unjust and improper to permit amendment at this advanced stage, noting the application lacked diligence and the justification was vague and 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 their written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The court found that the respondent, despite having over three years to file the written statement, sought amendment only after recently tracing documents—constituting past events that should have been pleaded originally. Since the trial had already commenced with evidence and cross-examination, the court deemed it unjust and improper to permit amendment at this advanced stage, noting the application lacked diligence and the justification was vague and 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