MARUTI NANA PATIL vs AUTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD LTD AND ANR — HCBM10138542026

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010138542026

Filing Number

WP/8011/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )

Sub-Category

BRAND ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MARUTI NANA PATIL

    Adv. Adv v j ghorpade

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AUTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD LTD AND ANR

  2. 2.AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AUTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

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

  3. 07-May-2026

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

    In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8011 of 2026, the Bombay High Court granted petitioner Maruti Nana Patil a final opportunity of two weeks (excluding summer vacation) to remove office objections to the petition. The petitioner had previously failed to cure the defects despite being notified on April 21, 2026. If objections remain unresolved, the Registrar will refuse registration of the writ petition as per Rule 3(iii) of 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.

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8011 of 2026, the Bombay High Court granted petitioner Maruti Nana Patil a final opportunity of two weeks (excluding summer vacation) to remove office objections to the petition. The petitioner had previously failed to cure the defects despite being notified on April 21, 2026. If objections remain unresolved, the Registrar will refuse registration of the writ petition as per Rule 3(iii) of 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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case