HANDBALL ASSOCIATION MAHARASHTRA vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF SPORT AND ORS — HCBM10160852026

Case under Bombay Public Trust Act. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Next hearing 15-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010160852026

Filing Number

WP/9281/2026

Filing Date

01-Apr-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

RELIGIOUS/CHARITABLE ENDOWMWNTS AND PUBLIC TRUST ( 33 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Public Trust Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HANDBALL ASSOCIATION MAHARASHTRA

    Adv. Tukaram Shendge

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF SPORT AND ORS

  2. 2.INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETORY

  3. 3.MAHARASHTRA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION

  4. 4.THE COMMISSIONER, SPORT AND YOUTH AFFAIRS COMMISSIONERATE

  5. 5.THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 9281 of 2026 filed by Handball Association Maharashtra against the State of Maharashtra and others was notified on 4 May 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove these objections. While Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 mandates refusal of registration upon non-compliance, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to remove office objections. If objections remain unaddressed, appropriate orders refusing registration will be passed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 9281 of 2026 filed by Handball Association Maharashtra against the State of Maharashtra and others was notified on 4 May 2026 for removal of office objections. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove these objections. While Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 mandates refusal of registration upon non-compliance, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to remove office objections. If objections remain unaddressed, appropriate orders refusing registration will be passed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case