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. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010134592026
Filing Number
WP/7779/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-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
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAY SHRIKRUSHNA MAHILA CONSUMER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. THR. CHAIRMAN CHAITALI S. PAWAR
Adv. Sharad
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS
-
2.HONBLE MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
-
3.THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING F REGION ARAMBAUG ESTATE
-
4.SHILPAKAR MAILA BACHAT GAT THR. THEIR CHAIRMAN SMT SHILPA BHARATI UMESH SAHU
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
19-Jun-2026
For Orders (Objection Not Removed)
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)
-
08-May-2026
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF
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.
-
22-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
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.
Explore other courts