Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
56 judgments · newest first · showing 1–56
The appellants, Shri Arvind H. Patel and another, filed First Appeals No. 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2018 against M/s. Jayesh Builders and another in the Bombay High Court. The appellants' counsel sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, stating that the disputes had been settled between the parties. The …
The appellants, Shri Arvind H. Patel and another, filed First Appeals No. 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2018 against M/s. Jayesh Builders and another in the Bombay High Court. The appellants' counsel sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, stating that the disputes had been settled between the parties. The …
The appellants, Shri Arvind H. Patel and another, filed First Appeals No. 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2018 against M/s. Jayesh Builders and another in the Bombay High Court. The appellants' counsel sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, stating that the disputes had been settled between the parties. The …
The appellants, Shri Arvind H. Patel and another, filed First Appeals No. 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2018 against M/s. Jayesh Builders and another in the Bombay High Court. The appellants' counsel sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, stating that the disputes had been settled between the parties. The …
The appellant, Ganesh Chinnapa Patil, filed a first appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai but failed to appear before the court on multiple occasions. The court noted that the appellant was not present on the previous occasion and again on the current date, indicating a lack of …
The appellant, Mr. Pramod Krushnat Mohite, failed to appear before the High Court of Bombay for the first appeal (ST) No. 12769 of 2018. The court noted that the appellant had previously sought a time extension but subsequently showed no desire to prosecute the appeal. The central issue was whether …
The applicants filed an interim application seeking expedition of the First Appeal (No.233 of 2013) on the ground that Respondent No.2, who is 82 years old and suffers from multiple health ailments, requires a speedy hearing. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 stated that there is no objection …
The applicants filed a first appeal 114 days after the prescribed period and filed a civil application seeking condonation of this delay. The respondents chose not to oppose the application and did not file an affidavit. The court examined the averments and, considering the interests of justice, …
The Food Corporation of India (FCI) filed an interim application seeking to set aside an order dated 4 November 2019 that dismissed its civil application against Respondent No.2 for failure to serve notice within a four‑week period. FCI argued that the address of Respondent No.2 was unavailable and …
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the first appeal filed in Civil Application No. 2805 of 2017. Consequently, the civil application seeking a stay of the dismissal was also dismissed and did not survive.
The appellant, Ismt Limited (formerly Indian Seamless Steels And Alloys Ltd.), filed a first appeal seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the related civil applications (Nos. 3505 of 2016, 3938 of 2012, and 1061 of 2013) were also disposed …
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. filed a first appeal against a judgment involving Suresh and another respondent. The appellant, through counsel Mrs. Kalpana Trivedi a.w Ms Yashika Jain, sought leave of the court to withdraw the appeal. The High Court considered whether the appeal could be …
The appellant, Crystal Lace (India) Limited, filed an arbitration appeal which was later sought to be withdrawn by its counsel, Ms. Richa Bharti. The respondent, Dinesh Patel, opposed the withdrawal. The sole issue before the Court was whether the appellant could be permitted to withdraw the appeal …
The appellant, Smt. Nola Jonathan Ranbhise, failed to appear before the High Court of Bombay on two consecutive occasions for the hearing of First Appeal No. 1345 of 2014. The court noted that no representation was made on the appellant's behalf, indicating a lack of desire to prosecute the appeal. …
The appellants, Natwar Nagjibhai Parekh (deceased) and Mrs. Rasila Natvar Parekh, appealed against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The trial court had earlier adjourned the matter on 27 January 2026, noting that the parties were not ready. The appellants later claimed that their paper …
The applicant filed interim applications seeking restoration of two first appeals that had been dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a court order dated 9 December 2025. The respondent indicated it would not file an affidavit in reply. After hearing counsel and reviewing the …
M/s. Kundan Collection A and Ors. filed an arbitration appeal before the High Court of Bombay against The Cosmos Co-op. Bank Limited, Pune. The appellants were represented by Mr. Harshad Kapadiya and Mr. Ronak Shah, while no counsel appeared for the respondent. The court noted that the matter had …
The appellant filed Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court and subsequently sought leave to withdraw the appeal. The court considered the request to withdraw at a relatively advanced stage of the proceedings. It held that the appellant's request could not be entertained and …
The appellants, Ranjan Mitchell and another, filed a first appeal before the Bombay High Court against the Deputy Collector, Bombay and others. No counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. Earlier, the court had granted the appellants time to seek instructions and …
The original claimant filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing a first appeal against a judgment and award dated 6 October 2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Original Application No. OA 185 of 2012). The applicant’s advocate requested urgent orders, but no …
The applicant, Rajshekhar Ramji Kumbhar, filed an interim application seeking restoration of his appeal after the High Court had dismissed the appeal by order dated 26 March 2026. The applicant argued that sufficient cause existed for restoration and noted that there was no opposition from the …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The State of Maharashtra, represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a series of first appeals (Nos. 866, 874, 883, etc.) against Shri Ramesh Chaburao Deshmukh and others. The appellant later sought leave to withdraw all the appeals, citing specific notifications dated 3 November 2016, …
The Bombay High Court heard an appeal against a 2015 order of the Bombay City Civil Court that restrained certain defendants from constructing on a plot of land in Kausa, Thane, and an office premises in Mumbai. The appellant, Moosa Madam Khan, represented the Haj Committee Mazdoor Welfare Society, …
The appellant, Mr. Harakchand B. Savla, appealed against the rejection of his notice of motion seeking a stay of a 2013 notice and order issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The suit is at the trial stage, with the plaintiff’s evidence completed and the defendant’s evidence …
The appellant, Jawahar Pesumal Bhatia, appealed an order dated 30 July 2018 that rejected his motion for a stay of a notice issued on 24 June 2015. Although the motion was rejected, the court had stayed the impugned order, so the notice had not been implemented. The underlying suit, filed in 2007, …
The appellant, Jawahar Pesumal Bhatia, appealed an order dated 30 July 2018 that rejected his motion for a stay of a notice issued on 24 June 2015. Although the motion was rejected, the court had stayed the impugned order, so the notice had not been implemented. The underlying suit, filed in 2007, …
The appellants, Mrs. Ratan Sharad Vidhate and another, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court on the scheduled date. The court noted that no representative was present to prosecute the appeal. It inferred that the appellants were not desirous of pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the court …
The appellants, Mrs. Ratan Sharad Vidhate and another, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court on the scheduled date. The court noted that no representative was present to prosecute the appeal. It inferred that the appellants were not desirous of pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the court …
Petitioner Yashwant B. Pendhari filed Contempt Petition No.48 of 2018 and Contempt Petition No.38 of 2018 against Dream Arihant Infrastructure & Co. No counsel appeared for the petitioner on either occasion, indicating the petitioner was not desirous of prosecuting the petitions. The Court observed …
The appellant, Neumee Elegance Co-operative Ltd., claimed entitlement to a parking area that it alleged lay within the demarcated premises of the first respondent, Babulnath Ashram Co-operative Ltd. The dispute arose after development work by the second respondent, the BMC, which the appellant said …
The appellant, Ramesh Nagesh Parsekar, appealed an order (No. 214 of 2018) in the Bombay High Court. The Registry noted that while the appeal from the order had been disposed of, a related civil application remained pending. The Court held that the order should be read to include that any civil …
Mohd Aijaz Mohd Suleman Shaikh appealed the order dated 15 January 2019 that rejected his civil application at the interim hearing stage. The appellant argued that his substantive suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was already at the evidence stage, rendering the civil …
The petitioner, Rameshchandra Jain, filed a contempt petition against Universal Builders and Developers and others, challenging the titles of two orders dated 28 January 2026 and 12 January 2026. The orders incorrectly recorded the jurisdiction as "ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION" instead of …
The appellant, the legal heir of the deceased Yusuf T. Jummani, appealed an order dated 9 August 2019 that had set aside the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court without framing any points for determination or recording findings. The appellant argued that the first …
The appellant, Murad Khetani, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court on two consecutive occasions for his appeal against an order of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The court had previously warned that further non‑appearance would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. On …
The appellant, Mr. Atul Patil, failed to appear before the High Court of Bombay, leading the court to dismiss the matter for non‑prosecution. Subsequently, the appellant's son approached the court, explaining that the appellant's counsel was occupied with another case and requested relief. The …
The applicant failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date. Consequently, the court inferred that the applicant was not interested in pursuing the civil application. No arguments or evidence were presented. The court therefore dismissed the application for want of prosecution. No further …
The matter was listed before the Bombay High Court on 9 February 2026. The Registry placed the case on the Board noting a procedural discrepancy. While the appeal from Order No. 27928 of 2017 had already been disposed of, the accompanying civil application (AO No. 7 of 2018) remained pending. The …
The appellant, Pradeep Vakil, filed several interim applications seeking to amend three first appeals by changing the name of Respondent No. 3 (a company). The Court had earlier allowed the appellant to file an additional affidavit explaining the name change, and the respondents did not oppose the …
The appellant, Pradeep Vakil, filed several interim applications seeking to amend three first appeals by changing the name of Respondent No. 3 (a company). The Court had earlier allowed the appellant to file an additional affidavit explaining the name change, and the respondents did not oppose the …
The appellants, Mr. Bhailal Babu Solanki and another, filed a first appeal against the Union of India (Western Railway). No counsel appeared for the appellants on the scheduled hearing date of 15 January 2020, nor on the subsequent hearing on 8 January 2026. The court noted that the appellants were …
The appellants, Mr. Rajendra Kashinath Rohekar and another, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court for the first appeal filed against the Union of India (Central Railway). The court noted that the appellants also did not appear at the earlier hearing on 15 January 2020. Since the appellants …
