TRUPTINDUR ANANTRAO JAGTAP AND ANR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — HCBM10146132026

Case under Mah. Regional Town Planning Act. 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: HCBM010146132026

Filing Number

WP/8451/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

TOWN PLANNING ( 39 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Regional Town Planning Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TRUPTINDUR ANANTRAO JAGTAP AND ANR

    Adv. M R BARVE

  2. 2.MALPRABHA VINAYAK SALKE (MISS MALPRABHA ANANTRAO JAGTAP)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

  2. 2.PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  3. 3.RAJESETU PROJECTS PVT. LTD

  4. 4.ANJALI RAJENDRA TAPADIA

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8451 of 2026 filed by Truptindur Anantrao Jagtap and others against the State of Maharashtra and others was notified on 23rd/24th April 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove these objections. Rather than immediately refusing registration as per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, after which appropriate action under Rule 3(iii) will be taken if objections remain unresolved. 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. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8451 of 2026 filed by Truptindur Anantrao Jagtap and others against the State of Maharashtra and others was notified on 23rd/24th April 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove these objections. Rather than immediately refusing registration as per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, after which appropriate action under Rule 3(iii) will be taken if objections remain unresolved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case