AJIT S/O HARENDRAPRATAP SINH AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ORS — HCBM10164562026
Case under Mah. Muncipalties Act. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010164562026
Filing Number
WP/9516/2026
Filing Date
02-Apr-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
Orders passed by Quasi Judicial Authority Other than Labour and Industrial Court ( 105 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AJIT S/O HARENDRAPRATAP SINH AND ORS
Adv. RAMESHWAR M BHAGWAT
-
2.SUJIT S/O HARENDRAPRATAP SINH
-
3.SHARDADEVI WD/O HARENDRAPRATAP SINH
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
-
2.NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (NMMC) THR. ITS COMMISSIONER
-
3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION H-DIVISION
-
4.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-1 NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (NMMC)
-
5.CHADRAVATI SARJURAM MAURYA
-
6.SHYAM SARJURAM MAURYA
-
7.GAYTI SHYAM MAURYA
Case History
-
15-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-Jun-2026
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF
Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 9516 of 2026 filed by Ajit, Sujit, and Shardadevi against the State of Maharashtra and Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was adjourned. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove office objections within the initial notification period (notified 4 May 2026). The Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure defects, warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Objections To Be Removed
Assistant Registrar
-
02-Apr-2026
Case filed
Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 9516 of 2026 filed by Ajit, Sujit, and Shardadevi against the State of Maharashtra and Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was adjourned. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove office objections within the initial notification period (notified 4 May 2026). The Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure defects, warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts