UMESH BHANGE vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS — HCBM10148852026

Case under Service Matter. 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: HCBM010148852026

Filing Number

WP/8599/2026

Filing Date

25-Mar-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

OTHER SERVICE MATTERS ( 66 )

Sub-Category

ALL OTHER SERVICE MATTERS - DB ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Service Matter

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UMESH BHANGE

    Adv. Tejesh Dande

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

  2. 2.THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRMD RECRUITMENT) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

  3. 3.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (WESTERN REGION) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

  4. 4.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE

  5. 5.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

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 No. 8599 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) found that petitioner Umesh Bhange and his advocate failed to remove office objections after notification on 23rd/24th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration as per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the court granted a two-week extension to remove the defects. If objections remain unresolved, the petition will be rejected and appropriate orders will be passed per Rule 3(iii). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: In Writ Petition No. 8599 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) found that petitioner Umesh Bhange and his advocate failed to remove office objections after notification on 23rd/24th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration as per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the court granted a two-week extension to remove the defects. If objections remain unresolved, the petition will be rejected and appropriate orders will be passed per 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