MM/S FINEOTEX CHEMICAL LTD vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. GOVT PLEADER AND ANR — HCBM10138622026

Case under Urban & Agricultural Land Ceiling 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: HCBM010138622026

Filing Number

WP/8015/2026

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

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 21 )

Sub-Category

AGRICULTURAL LAND CEILING ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Urban & Agricultural Land Ceiling Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MM/S FINEOTEX CHEMICAL LTD

    Adv. Mukesh Dongarge

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. GOVT PLEADER AND ANR

  2. 2.MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DEPUTY CEO AND EX-OFFICIO DY. SECRETARY

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

    CASE SUMMARY: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8015 of 2026 filed by MM/S Fineotex Chemical Ltd was notified on 21st April 2026 for removal of office objections. Since the petitioner and its advocate failed to remove the objections, the Registrar (Judicial-I) granted an additional two weeks (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects, warning that failure to do so would result in refusal of registration under Rule 3 sub-rule (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

CASE SUMMARY: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8015 of 2026 filed by MM/S Fineotex Chemical Ltd was notified on 21st April 2026 for removal of office objections. Since the petitioner and its advocate failed to remove the objections, the Registrar (Judicial-I) granted an additional two weeks (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects, warning that failure to do so would result in refusal of registration under Rule 3 sub-rule (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