NAFIS AHMAD MUNSHI ABDUL RASHID ANSARI vs HARSHALCO OP HSG SOC THR ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS — HCBM10154002026
Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order). Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010154002026
Filing Number
WP/8909/2026
Filing Date
27-Mar-2026
Judge
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)
Coram
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NAFIS AHMAD MUNSHI ABDUL RASHID ANSARI
Adv. ANIL D JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.HARSHALCO OP HSG SOC THR ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS
-
2.TUSHAR RAGHUVIR BHANUSHALI
-
3.SUDHAKAR SADASHIV SHINDE
-
4.TIRATHDAS S. DEVANI
-
5.CHETNA BUILDERS, THR. ITS PARTNER SHRI UTTAM SONWANE
-
6.SALMA MUNSHI ABDUL RASHID ANSARI
-
7.KHURSHID AHMAD MUNSHI ABDUL RASHID ANSARI
-
8.SHAMSAD AHMAD MUNSHI ABDUL RASHID ANSARI
-
9.THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
-
10.VEENA DEVELOPERS THR. ITS PARTNERS NANDKISHOR ANKUSH SATARDEKAR AND PARAG NANDKISHORE SATARDEKAR
Case History
-
11-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
11-Jun-2026
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF
Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8909 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner Nafis Ahmad Munshi Abdul Rashid Ansari failed to remove office objections after being notified on 29th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final opportunity of two weeks to cure the defects. The petition was adjourned with a directive that if office objections remain unremoved, the registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Apr-2026
Objections To Be Removed
Assistant Registrar
-
27-Mar-2026
Case filed
Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8909 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner Nafis Ahmad Munshi Abdul Rashid Ansari failed to remove office objections after being notified on 29th April 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final opportunity of two weeks to cure the defects. The petition was adjourned with a directive that if office objections remain unremoved, the registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts