M/S. VEDANT LANDMARK THR ITS PARTNER I.E. SHRI SANDEEP DEEPAK AGARWAL AND OTHERS vs M/S. DYNAMIC REALTY VENTURES THR. ITS RAJEEV SHIVANTH SONKAR — IA/3986/2026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 104. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010171732026

Filing Number

IA/9981/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

IA/3986/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Bench Type

Single

Category

CIVIL APPEALS ( 45 )

Sub-Category

Single Bench Matters ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 104

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. VEDANT LANDMARK THR ITS PARTNER I.E. SHRI SANDEEP DEEPAK AGARWAL AND OTHERS

    Adv. ppadmanabh associates

  2. 2.SHRI SANDEEP DEEPAK AGARWAL

  3. 3.SMT. SHASHIKALA DEEPAK AGARWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S. DYNAMIC REALTY VENTURES THR. ITS RAJEEV SHIVANTH SONKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

    Case Summary: IA/3986/2026 The Bombay High Court allowed the defendant's appeal with a 466-day filing delay and directed the trial court to dispose of the pending injunction application within eight weeks, citing the injustice of keeping a temporary injunction order pending for four years without decision. The court preserved all parties' contentions and directed the trial court to decide the injunction application independently without being influenced by the earlier temporary injunction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3986/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: IA/3986/2026 The Bombay High Court allowed the defendant's appeal with a 466-day filing delay and directed the trial court to dispose of the pending injunction application within eight weeks, citing the injustice of keeping a temporary injunction order pending for four years without decision. The court preserved all parties' contentions and directed the trial court to decide the injunction application independently without being influenced by the earlier temporary injunction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case