Shrikant Sapkal vs Vasantdada She.Sha.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 56/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100001062019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
106/2019
Filing Date
29-06-2019
Registration No
56/2019
Registration Date
29-06-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shrikant Sapkal
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada She.Sha.Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 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 in an unfair labour practice complaint filed by senior citizen Shrikant Sapkal against Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana. The Court found that the proposed amendments, relating to the factory's financial crisis and past wage agreements, constituted past events that should have been pleaded in the original statement, and that the respondent's delay of three years in filing the written statement, coupled with the trial already being commenced, made the amendment untimely and not diligently pursued. 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 in an unfair labour practice complaint filed by senior citizen Shrikant Sapkal against Vasantdada Sah. Sakhar Karkhana. The Court found that the proposed amendments, relating to the factory's financial crisis and past wage agreements, constituted past events that should have been pleaded in the original statement, and that the respondent's delay of three years in filing the written statement, coupled with the trial already being commenced, made the amendment untimely and not diligently pursued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts