THE BRANCH MANAGER UNIVERSL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs INDUMATI DATTATRAY GHORPADE AND ORS — HCBM10171772026

Case under Legal Services Authorities Act. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

Next hearing 19-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010171772026

Filing Number

WP/9985/2026

Filing Date

06-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 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Legal Services Authorities Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE BRANCH MANAGER UNIVERSL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

    Adv. KALPANA TRIVEDI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.INDUMATI DATTATRAY GHORPADE AND ORS

  2. 2.THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT PUNE

  3. 3.AUXILIUM INSURANCE BROKERAGE PVT. LTD

  4. 4.THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE MAHARASHTRA STATE

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9985 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner (Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd) failed to remove office objections after being notified on 8th May 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted the petitioner and advocate two weeks additional time to cure the defects. If objections remain unremoved, registration will be refused and appropriate orders passed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9985 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner (Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd) failed to remove office objections after being notified on 8th May 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted the petitioner and advocate two weeks additional time to cure the defects. If objections remain unremoved, registration will be refused and appropriate orders 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