Dosti Realty Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Deputy Commissioner Local Body Tax Advocate - Aniesh S Jadhav — HCBM10107252026

Case under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section Article14,19,21and227. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010107252026

e-Filing Number

27-02-2026

Filing Number

WP/6164/2026

Filing Date

04-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Coram

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Bench Type

Division

Category

LOCAL BODY MATTERS OTHER THAN ELECTION, LABOUR AND SERVICE ( 61 )

Sub-Category

Municipal Corporation ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section Article14,19,21and227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dosti Realty Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Deputy Commissioner Local Body Tax Advocate - Aniesh S Jadhav

  2. 2.Municipal Commissioner Local Body Tax

    Adv. Aniesh S Jadhav

  3. 3.State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Jun-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF

    Case Summary: Dosti Realty Limited's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 6164 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections after being notified on 27 April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under procedural rules, the court granted an additional two-week opportunity to cure the defects, warning that failure to comply would result in rejection of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Dosti Realty Limited's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 6164 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections after being notified on 27 April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under procedural rules, the court granted an additional two-week opportunity to cure the defects, warning that failure to comply would result in rejection of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case