KAMAL W/O BASLING ALLAM AND ANR vs LAL BHERUMAL LAUNGANI AND ANR — HCBM10137882026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010137882026

Filing Number

WP/7969/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Single

Category

RENT ACT ( 34 )

Sub-Category

ENHANCEMENT OF RENT ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMAL W/O BASLING ALLAM AND ANR

    Adv. DHAKORKAR SIDDHESH

  2. 2.PARMESHWAR S/O BASLING ALLAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LAL BHERUMAL LAUNGANI AND ANR

  2. 2.RAJSHEKHAR S/O BASLING ALLAM

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 7969 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the Registrar (Judicial-I) found that petitioners Kamal and Parmeshwar failed to remove office objections despite notification on 23rd/24th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Rules 1960, the court granted petitioners and their advocate an additional two weeks to cure the defects. If objections remain unremoved, registration will be refused and appropriate action taken under Rule 3(iii). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 7969 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the Registrar (Judicial-I) found that petitioners Kamal and Parmeshwar failed to remove office objections despite notification on 23rd/24th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Rules 1960, the court granted petitioners and their advocate an additional two weeks to cure the defects. If objections remain unremoved, registration will be refused and appropriate action taken under Rule 3(iii). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case