UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING vs AJIT KUMAR PATHAK — HCBM10031462026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010031462026
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
20-01-2026
Filing Number
WP/1843/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Judge
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
Coram
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
Bench Type
Division
Category
CAT related Service Matters ( 62 )
Sub-Category
Adverse Action ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
Adv. GARGE ANIRUDDHA ARUN
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT SSE FILMS DIVISION MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE
Respondent(s)
AJIT KUMAR PATHAK
Hearing History
Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 24-06-2026 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
Orders
Case Summary Case: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 1843 of 2026, Bombay High Court Petitioner: Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Respondent: Ajit Kumar Pathak Outcome: The writ petition was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections by the April 27, 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted an additional two weeks to cure the defects, with a warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii), Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 1843 of 2026, Bombay High Court Petitioner: Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Respondent: Ajit Kumar Pathak Outcome: The writ petition was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections by the April 27, 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted an additional two weeks to cure the defects, with a warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii), Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts