JAY SHRIKRUSHNA MAHILA CONSUMER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. THR. CHAIRMAN CHAITALI S. PAWAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS — HCBM10134592026

Case under Essential Commodities Act Section ---. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010134592026

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

WP/7779/2026

Filing Date

17-03-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Essential Commodities Act Section ---

Petitioner(s)

JAY SHRIKRUSHNA MAHILA CONSUMER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. THR. CHAIRMAN CHAITALI S. PAWAR

Adv. Sharad

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS

HONBLE MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT

THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING F REGION ARAMBAUG ESTATE

SHILPAKAR MAILA BACHAT GAT THR. THEIR CHAIRMAN SMT SHILPA BHARATI UMESH SAHU

Hearing History

Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

22-04-2026

OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED

19-06-2026

FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)

Orders

08-05-2026
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 7779 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner Jay Shrikrushna Mahila Consumer Cooperative Society failed to remove office objections by the 22 April 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted a final two-week opportunity (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects; failure to do so will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 7779 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner Jay Shrikrushna Mahila Consumer Cooperative Society failed to remove office objections by the 22 April 2026 deadline. The Registrar granted a final two-week opportunity (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects; failure to do so will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, 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

Search Another Case