UMESH BHANGE vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS — HCBM10148852026
Case under Service Matter. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010148852026
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
WP/8599/2026
Filing Date
25-03-2026
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
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UMESH BHANGE
Adv. Tejesh Dande
Respondent(s)
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRMD RECRUITMENT) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (WESTERN REGION) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts