Anand Rajesham Mittapelli vs Presiding Officer — CP/236/2026

Case under Contempt of Courts Act Section 88. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010166692026

e-Filing Number

02-04-2026

Filing Number

CP/9651/2026

Filing Date

02-Apr-2026

Registration No

CP/236/2026

Registration Date

17-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act Section 88

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Anand Rajesham Mittapelli

    Adv. Vivek Machha

  2. 2.Radha Anand Mittapelli

    Adv. MACHHA VIVEK NAGABHUSHANAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Presiding Officer

  2. 2.Nandita Mahadik

  3. 3.Capri Global Capital Limited

  4. 4.Capri Global Housing Finance Limited

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    Summary of CP/236/2026 The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by Anand Rajesham Mittapelli against the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-III), finding it "thoroughly misconceived." The court held that the DRT had complied with its prior March 10, 2026 order by taking up and disposing of the interim application on the directed date of March 11, 2026, thereby establishing no case of disobedience of court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CP/236/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CP/236/2026 The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by Anand Rajesham Mittapelli against the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-III), finding it "thoroughly misconceived." The court held that the DRT had complied with its prior March 10, 2026 order by taking up and disposing of the interim application on the directed date of March 11, 2026, thereby establishing no case of disobedience of court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case