YOGESH ENTERPRISES THRO. ITS PROPRIETOR VINAYAK PANDHARINATH BHONGALE vs RESERVE AND OF INDIA THRO. ITS GOVERNOR — WP/7265/2026
Case under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 Section NA. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010131162026
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
WP/7592/2026
Filing Date
16-03-2026
Registration No
WP/7265/2026
Registration Date
10-06-2026
Bench Type
Division
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
YOGESH ENTERPRISES THRO. ITS PROPRIETOR VINAYAK PANDHARINATH BHONGALE
Adv. Sagar Kursija
Respondent(s)
RESERVE AND OF INDIA THRO. ITS GOVERNOR
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD THRO ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S ATHARVA BUILDWEL THRO ITS PARTNER ANILKUMAR HARIBHAI PATEL
Hearing History
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 19-06-2026 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
Orders
Case Summary: WP 7592/2026 - Yogesh Enterprises v. RBI & Others The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted the petitioner and advocate a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to remove outstanding office objections to the writ petition. The petition was previously notified on 22 April 2026 for objection removal but failed to comply. The court warned that failure to cure defects within this extension will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii), Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP 7592/2026 - Yogesh Enterprises v. RBI & Others The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted the petitioner and advocate a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to remove outstanding office objections to the writ petition. The petition was previously notified on 22 April 2026 for objection removal but failed to comply. The court warned that failure to cure defects within this extension will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii), Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side 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