Jagannath Kurade vs Vasantdada She. Saha. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Sangli and 1 Advocate - Mutaalik Sanadiip Shashikant — 60/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100001122019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
112/2019
Filing Date
11-07-2019
Registration No
60/2019
Registration Date
11-07-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jagannath Kurade
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Vasantdada She. Saha. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Sangli and 1 Advocate - Mutaalik Sanadiip 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 seeking amendment to their written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the respondent delayed three years before filing its written statement, moved the amendment application after trial had already commenced with the complainant's cross-examination underway, and provided vague justification (recently traced documents from old case files) for the omissions. The High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions challenging an earlier rejection of the same amendment, noting the events sought to be added were all past occurrences, not subsequent events warranting amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court, Sangli rejected the respondent's application seeking amendment to their written statement in this unfair labor practice complaint. The Court found that the respondent delayed three years before filing its written statement, moved the amendment application after trial had already commenced with the complainant's cross-examination underway, and provided vague justification (recently traced documents from old case files) for the omissions. The High Court had previously dismissed similar writ petitions challenging an earlier rejection of the same amendment, noting the events sought to be added were all past occurrences, not subsequent events warranting amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts