Ramesh Mangilal Jain vs Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance — HCBM10160012026

Case under Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 Section Article19and21. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010160012026

Next Hearing

24th June 2026

e-Filing Number

30-03-2026

Filing Number

WP/9260/2026

Filing Date

30-03-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

INDIRECT TAXES ( 17 )

Sub-Category

GST Goods and Services Tax ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 Section Article19and21

Petitioner(s)

Ramesh Mangilal Jain

Adv. Atul Singh

Respondent(s)

Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance

Additional Commissioner of CGST and CEx Mumbai Central

Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, CGST and CEx, Thane

Devchand Velji Shah Proprietor of Noble Corporation

Hearing History

Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

27-04-2026

OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED

24-06-2026

FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)

Orders

09-06-2026
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

Summary Ramesh Mangilal Jain's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9260 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections within the stipulated time. The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to remove these objections, warning that failure to do so 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.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Ramesh Mangilal Jain's Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9260 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court was adjourned. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections within the stipulated time. The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to remove these objections, warning that failure to do so 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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case