ANJUM E FAIZE SHABBIR AND ORS vs GORGINA ALIAS JEENA ALIAS JEANE Advocate - EVENTA ANDREA GONSALVES — WP/4351/2026
Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010162612026
Filing Number
WP/9396/2026
Filing Date
01-04-2026
Registration No
WP/4351/2026
Registration Date
04-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Bench Type
Single
Category
RENT ACT ( 34 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ANJUM E FAIZE SHABBIR AND ORS
Adv. J Sagar Associates
MUSTANSIR ABDULLA LOKHANDWALA
HAKUMUDDIN MISTER S/O EBRAHIM MISTER
ISMAIL EBRAHIM SAIFY S/O EBRAHIM SAIFY
JUZER ASGAR CHAHWALA S/O ASGAR CHAHWALA
HIS HOLINESS DR. SYEDNA MUFFADDAL SAIFUDDIN
Respondent(s)
GORGINA ALIAS JEENA ALIAS JEANE Advocate - EVENTA ANDREA GONSALVES
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 23-04-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/4351/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Small Causes Court order that dismissed a plaint amendment application. The core issue was whether the suit was maintainable when filed by delegate attorneys (Plaintiffs 2-5) rather than the sole trustee (Petitioner No. 6) directly. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Plaintiff No. 3 possessed valid delegated authority under Powers of Attorney executed by Petitioner No. 6, making the objection to his authority unfounded. The court directed Petitioner No. 6 to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for his direct impleadment as Plaintiff within 2 weeks, with the trial court to decide expeditiously by 30 June 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/4351/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Small Causes Court order that dismissed a plaint amendment application. The core issue was whether the suit was maintainable when filed by delegate attorneys (Plaintiffs 2-5) rather than the sole trustee (Petitioner No. 6) directly. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Plaintiff No. 3 possessed valid delegated authority under Powers of Attorney executed by Petitioner No. 6, making the objection to his authority unfounded. The court directed Petitioner No. 6 to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for his direct impleadment as Plaintiff within 2 weeks, with the trial court to decide expeditiously by 30 June 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts