KULDIP RAMAYAL SHARMA AND ANR vs THE CHIEF OFFICER, SILVASSA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS — HCBM10155542026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order). Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Next hearing 11-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010155542026

Filing Number

WP/8997/2026

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

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDIP RAMAYAL SHARMA AND ANR

    Adv. Ronak Utagikar

  2. 2.RAJARANI CHANDAN PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE CHIEF OFFICER, SILVASSA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

  2. 2.GUDIYABEN SURESH MURAI

  3. 3.TARABEN JAGANNATH MURAI

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8997 of 2026 was notified on 29th April 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioners and their advocate failed to cure these defects. Rather than immediately refusing registration per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the Registrar granted a second opportunity. The petitioners and advocate were given two weeks to remove office objections, with a warning that failure to do so would result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8997 of 2026 was notified on 29th April 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioners and their advocate failed to cure these defects. Rather than immediately refusing registration per Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the Registrar granted a second opportunity. The petitioners and advocate were given two weeks to remove office objections, with a warning that failure to do so would result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case