AMINES AND PLASTICIZERS LIMITED vs APL HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED Advocate - J J Thakkar — WP/3109/2026
Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 28th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010106922026
Filing Number
WP/6143/2026
Filing Date
04-Mar-2026
Registration No
WP/3109/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AMINES AND PLASTICIZERS LIMITED
Adv. Sujit Lahoti and Associates
Respondent(s)
-
1.APL HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED Advocate - J J Thakkar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
Case Summary: WP/3109/2026 Amines And Plasticizers Limited v. APL Holdings and Investments Limited The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the licensee challenging orders denying permission to recall its witness to produce supporting bills after evidence closure. The petitioner-defendant sought to prove expenditure on renovating commercial premises in Worli, Mumbai, claiming inadvertence prevented earlier production of bills. The court found the petitioner negligent for not producing available evidence over 16 years and rejected the applications as gross abuse of process, imposing Rs.25,000 costs per petition, ordering expeditious trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
-
09-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/3109/2026
Case Summary: WP/3109/2026 Amines And Plasticizers Limited v. APL Holdings and Investments Limited The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the licensee challenging orders denying permission to recall its witness to produce supporting bills after evidence closure. The petitioner-defendant sought to prove expenditure on renovating commercial premises in Worli, Mumbai, claiming inadvertence prevented earlier production of bills. The court found the petitioner negligent for not producing available evidence over 16 years and rejected the applications as gross abuse of process, imposing Rs.25,000 costs per petition, ordering expeditious trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts