Ahsok Shinde vs Vasantdada She. Sha. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 57/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100001072019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
107/2019
Filing Date
29-06-2019
Registration No
57/2019
Registration Date
29-06-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ahsok Shinde
Adv. C. R. Sonecha / M. D. Mahanavar
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
Case Summary Industrial Court, Sangli | Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 2019 | Order dated 11.07.2025 The Industrial Court rejected the respondent's application seeking amendment to its written statement. The Court found that the respondent unreasonably delayed filing amendments relating to past events (financial crisis, layoffs, and wage agreements from 2004-2007) and provided no valid justification for not including these pleadings originally, despite having three years to do so. Since trial had already commenced with evidence filed and cross-examination initiated, the Court deemed it improper to allow amendments merely because certain documents were recently discovered, especially after the High Court had previously dismissed similar amendment petitions on identical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Industrial Court, Sangli | Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 2019 | Order dated 11.07.2025 The Industrial Court rejected the respondent's application seeking amendment to its written statement. The Court found that the respondent unreasonably delayed filing amendments relating to past events (financial crisis, layoffs, and wage agreements from 2004-2007) and provided no valid justification for not including these pleadings originally, despite having three years to do so. Since trial had already commenced with evidence filed and cross-examination initiated, the Court deemed it improper to allow amendments merely because certain documents were recently discovered, especially after the High Court had previously dismissed similar amendment petitions on identical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts