Lalaso Bandu Mujawar vs Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana and others one Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 46/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28 (9)(10). Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000882019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
88/2019
Filing Date
05-04-2019
Registration No
46/2019
Registration Date
05-04-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lalaso Bandu Mujawar
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana and others 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 for amendment to the written statement dated 11th 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, and rejected the respondent's explanation that documents were only recently traced. Since the trial had already commenced with the complainant's evidence and cross-examination, the court deemed it unjust to allow amendments at this late stage in the over-five-year-old case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court, Sangli rejected the respondent's application for amendment to the written statement dated 11th 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, and rejected the respondent's explanation that documents were only recently traced. Since the trial had already commenced with the complainant's evidence and cross-examination, the court deemed it unjust to allow amendments at this late stage in the over-five-year-old case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts