HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR — HCBM10152072026

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 12-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010152072026

Filing Number

WP/8787/2026

Filing Date

26-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

MATTERS RELATING TO SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS ( 10 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD

    Adv. Alok D Mishra

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

  2. 2.SHREE SAI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8787 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections within the initial notification period (30th April 2026). The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under 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.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8787 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections within the initial notification period (30th April 2026). The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under 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