Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
51 judgments · newest first · showing 1–51
The petitioners, Dnyaneshwar Bhaguji Pandhare and others, filed a writ petition seeking leave to withdraw the petition and obtain liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 2 May 2026. They were represented by Mr. Surel Shah and his team. The court, after considering the application, …
Santosh Madev Parab and others filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief against Suman Nagar Co‑Op. Housing Society Ltd and others. During the proceedings, the petitioners, through counsel Yogesh Sharma, expressed their desire to withdraw the petition. The Court considered …
The applicant, Nilesh Prajapati, sought anticipatory bail after his name was added to FIR No. 0155/2026 through a supplementary statement by the complainant, although he was not originally named. The FIR alleged assault by four persons, and the supplementary statement implicated the applicant as the …
Petitioner Abdul Fazal Khan filed a civil writ petition challenging the demolition of a structure. The Court directed the petitioner to produce documents proving the structure’s legality before the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of Kalyan by 9 June 2026. The Tahsildar was instructed to examine …
The petitioner, Khan Ayesha Siddiqa Abubakar, filed a civil writ petition challenging the demolition of a structure. The Court directed the petitioner to produce documents proving the structure's legality before the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate by 9 June 2026. Upon receipt, the respondent …
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Dnyaneshwar Gore, the elder brother of accused No.1 in an FIR alleging sexual assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR also alleged that the applicant verbally abused and threatened the …
The petitioners sought relief concerning a structure they claimed was authorized. The Court directed the petitioners to produce documents proving the legality of the structure before the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of Kalyan by 9 June 2026. If the documents are produced, the respondent …
The petitioners, Mustafa Mukhtar Kungale and others, filed a civil writ petition challenging the demolition of a structure they claimed was authorized. The Court directed the petitioners to produce documents proving the legality of the structure before the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of …
The petitioners, Jitesh Dudhale and others, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11 March 2026 issued by the Appellate Senior Citizen Tribunal and the District Collector. By mutual consent, the High Court directed the respondent to hear the stay application filed by the petitioners …
The applicants, Sumit Prafulchandra Desai and Pranavkumar Prafulchandra Vora, had filed four interim applications (including two stay applications) in two separate criminal writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. Their counsel, Mr. Arpit Mutha, moved the court seeking leave to withdraw all four …
Petitioner Sandeep Bhaskar Naik filed a civil writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dombivali and other respondents. The Court, after hearing the parties, directed that the amendment sought in Interim Application No. …
The applicant, Mr. Sandeep Bhaskar Naik, filed an interim application seeking to amend his civil writ petition (No. 3533 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court. The amendment sought was detailed in Schedule A attached to the application. Respondents, represented by Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan and Mr. Amey …
The petitioner, the sole bidder in an auction conducted by UCO Bank, sought an extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration and the refund of his Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) after the bank unilaterally cancelled the auction. The bank contended that a moratorium under Section 95 of the …
Allen Gerald D’Silva appealed an order dated 30 June 2021 that temporarily restrained him from disturbing the possession of premises claimed by Grace A. Pinto. The appellant filed Interim Application No.3036 of 2022, contending that the respondents' Notice of Motion No.1200 of 2021 was not supported …
The appellants sought to amend the First Appeal by impleading the heirs and legal representatives of deceased parties and requested condonation of substantial delays in filing the interim applications. The court examined four sets of interim applications (433/2019, 437/2019, 438/2019, 440/2019, and …
The appellants sought to amend the First Appeal by impleading the heirs and legal representatives of deceased parties and requested condonation of substantial delays in filing the interim applications. The court examined four sets of interim applications (433/2019, 437/2019, 438/2019, 440/2019, and …
Eighteen flat owners of the Universal Garden building challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized construction. They sought ad‑interim protective relief in separate suits, but the trial court denied relief, …
Eighteen flat owners of the Universal Garden building challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized construction. They sought ad‑interim protective relief in separate suits, but the trial court denied relief, …
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 14 October 2020, seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing her of Flat No. 306. The respondent contended that the agreement was forged and that he could not have signed it because he was hospitalized for …
The appellants, owners of 24 flats in the Universal Garden building, challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized enclosure of balconies. They sought interim relief to prevent removal of the structures, claiming …
The appellants, owners of 24 flats in the Universal Garden building, challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized enclosure of balconies. They sought interim relief to prevent removal of the structures, claiming …
The appellants sought to delete a deceased appellant from the first appeal and substitute his heirs, while the respondents filed a civil application to delete a deceased respondent and implead his heirs. Both applications were filed after considerable delay, prompting the court to consider …
The appellant Rajkumar Sharma appealed against two orders of the Trial Court dated 5 August 2023 and 27 September 2024 that rejected his ad‑interim reliefs. The respondents Vishrut Anand Sharma and others filed a counter suit seeking to set aside those interim orders. Both parties complained that …
The appellants, Thakur Blue Heaven Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed an appeal against Mahadev Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and sought to withdraw the appeal. Counsel for the appellants informed the court of their intention to withdraw, and the court entertained the request. The …
The appellants, Ravinder Singh Sethi and others, filed an appeal against orders dated 2023 in an interim application before the Bombay High Court. Their counsel, Mr. Jagdish Jayale, sought leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court, after considering the request, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. It …
The appellant Hindustan Composites Ltd. and respondent Neela Vasant Ajgaonkar settled the dispute underlying First Appeal No. 371 of 2009 by executing Consent Terms dated 2 April 2026. The consent document, signed by the parties, their advocates, and a senior manager authorized by a corporate …
The appellant, Ashutosh Ganesh Mahajan and others, filed an appeal against an order of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and other respondents. The trial court had earlier dismissed the suit for default by order dated 21 January 2026. No counsel appeared for the …
The applicant filed an interim application seeking to delete the name of Appellant No.1‑H, who died in 2013, from the cause title of a first appeal. The applicant argued that all heirs and legal representatives of the deceased were already on record, so no further impleadment was necessary. The …
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) appealed an interim order dated 6 March 2017 that directed the parties to maintain the status quo after demolition of a terrace and fourth floor, pending a notice of motion (No. 3794 of 2016) that remained undecided. The appellant argued that the …
The appellant, Mr. Rafique Ahmed, filed an appeal against an order dated 2024‑287. During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. S. P. Shrivastava, sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the appeal on his client’s instructions. The Court, after noting its reluctance to entertain the appeal, …
The appellant, Ali Athar Khan, filed an interim application seeking contempt proceedings against BEST and others for shifting 14 electricity meters while an appeal against a trial court order was pending. The trial court had granted a status‑quo only for one meter and refused interim relief for the …
The appellant, Pushpa Gajanan Thavai, filed an interim application in an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The appellant failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date of 10 March 2026, and again on the adjourned date of 18 March 2026. The court noted the …
The appellant, Nadeem Chand, filed an appeal against an order dated 2023. The matter was listed for hearing on 11th March 2026, but no party appeared. The hearing was adjourned to 18th March 2026, and again no party appeared. The Court, noting the continuous non‑appearance, dismissed the appeal for …
The appellant, Soni Tower Co-operative Housing Society, was ordered on 4 March 2026 to file an Affidavit of Evidence before the Trial Court by 23 March 2026. The society's administrator, however, could not sign the affidavit as its contents were beyond her personal knowledge and sought permission to …
The appellant, Shafique Shaikh, occupied structure No. 99 in Malad (East), which the municipal corporation ordered to be demolished. The appellant appealed the order, and the High Court required him to vacate the structure by 27 March 2026, treating this as a binding undertaking. The court further …
The appellants Ramesh Premchand Agarwal & Anr. appealed against an ad‑interim order dated 23 December 2020 in which the trial court refused interim relief. The High Court noted that the pending Notice of Motion No. 1716 of 2020 had not yet been heard. By consent of the parties, the Court ordered the …
The appellants, Amit Dilip Sawant and another, filed an appeal against an order dated 29 January 2021. During the hearing, their counsel, Mr. Kunal Bhange, sought leave to withdraw the appeal because the clients intended to file a fresh application for amendment of the suit. The Court, after …
The appellants, Yunus Idris Karjikar and others, filed an appeal against the State of Maharashtra and others. The High Court scheduled a hearing on 6 January 2026, but no appellant appeared. The Court issued a notice that failure to appear at the next hearing would result in dismissal. On 17 …
The appellant, Ismail Abdul Aziz Shaikh, filed an appeal against the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Authority. No parties appeared before the Court on the scheduled dates, including the hearing on 10 February 2026 and the subsequent date. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of …
The appellants challenged an ad‑interim order dated 28 October 2021 that had directed the parties to maintain the status quo. The matter had not progressed in the trial court and was scheduled for hearing in March 2026. The High Court, noting the delay, directed the trial court to hear the Exhibit‑5 …
The appellant, Dinesh Dubey, sought protection against demolition of his Pan Shop (Shop No. 5-A) operated in a building owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The trial court dismissed his notice of motion, reasoning that the documents he produced were either already considered by the …
The petitioner, Laxmi (Sunshine Builders), filed a writ petition challenging a DRAT order that directed it to deposit Rs. 125 crore as a pre‑deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner argued it was not a borrower or mortgagor and therefore not liable to deposit. The respondents …
The appellants, Mohd. Mujeekullah Karimullah Shaikh & Ors., filed an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The High Court, after issuing an order on 16 January 2026, warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal for non‑prosecution. The appellants did not appear on …
The appellants, Mohd. Mujeekullah Karimullah Shaikh & Ors., filed an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The court had earlier warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal for non‑prosecution. On the scheduled date, the appellants did not appear. Consequently, the …
The appellants, Russel Boswell Francis Pereira & Anr., filed an appeal against an order dated 2021, along with two interim applications. The High Court, after issuing a notice on 9 January 2026, warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal for non‑prosecution. The appellants did not …
M/s. Kusum Power Control Cable Co. filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court. The Court noted on 9 January 2026 that no counsel for either party had appeared. It warned that failure to appear would lead to dismissal for want of prosecution. On 23 January 2026, still no party appeared before the …
The appellant, Balkrishna Vishram Mahiskar, filed an appeal against an order of the Chief Officer, Dharavi Rehabilitation Project. The High Court, after issuing a notice on 16 January 2026, warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal for non‑prosecution. The appellant did not appear on …
The appellants, Kantaben Navinchandra Shah and others, filed an appeal against the Designated Officer, Executive Engineer. The High Court issued a notice on 16 January 2026 requiring the appellants to appear, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for non‑prosecution. The appellants …
The appellant, Rashida Saifuddin Bharmal, filed an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The Court issued an order on 16 January 2026 warning that the appeal would be dismissed for non‑prosecution if the appellant did not appear. The appellant failed to appear on the scheduled …
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Shreeji Bhavan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay because the appellant failed to appear before the court despite a prior notice. The court had earlier warned that non-appearance would lead to …
The Registrar of the Bombay High Court noted that the appellant had failed to remove the office objections within the 14‑day period prescribed by Chapter V, Rule 3(ii) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, despite a four‑week extension previously granted. Under Rule 5, the Registrar is …
