GRESCASA INDIA PVT. LIMITED THR THEIR AUTHORIZED ACCOUNTS OFFICER MR. WILLIAM B. vs MANSI SHAH (PROPRIETOR OF MANSI CERAMICS — CP/74/2026
Case under Contempt of Court Act 1971 Section 12. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010041222026
e-Filing Number
23-01-2026
Filing Number
CP/2400/2026
Filing Date
23-Jan-2026
Registration No
CP/74/2026
Registration Date
30-Jan-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar
Bench Type
Single
Category
CONTEMPT OF COURT ( 8 )
Sub-Category
CIVIL CONTEMPT ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 03-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GRESCASA INDIA PVT. LIMITED THR THEIR AUTHORIZED ACCOUNTS OFFICER MR. WILLIAM B.
Adv. Sandeep Jalan
Respondent(s)
-
1.MANSI SHAH (PROPRIETOR OF MANSI CERAMICS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by Grescasa India Pvt. Limited against Mansi Shah for alleged breach of a City Civil Court order. The court held that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to pursue the matter through appropriate civil proceedings instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
At 3.00 P.M.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
-
18-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
-
18-Feb-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
-
04-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
-
04-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CP/74/2026
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by Grescasa India Pvt. Limited against Mansi Shah for alleged breach of a City Civil Court order. The court held that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to pursue the matter through appropriate civil proceedings instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts