Shital Somnath Gharge MAHINDRA BALASAHEB DESHMUKH vs Somnath Uttamrao Gharge — MCA/127/2026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 24. Next hearing: 06th August 2026.

Next hearing 06-Aug-2026

CNR: HCBM010181992026

e-Filing Number

09-04-2026

Filing Number

MCA/10566/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCA/127/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

Bench Type

Single

Category

FAMILY LAW ( 16 )

Sub-Category

DIVORCE/DISSOLUTION ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 24
Bombay Land Acquisition Act 1948 Section 1955

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shital Somnath Gharge MAHINDRA BALASAHEB DESHMUKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Somnath Uttamrao Gharge

Case History

  1. 06-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Aug-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Bombay issued a clarification order correcting a typographical error in its previous order dated 16.04.2026. Paragraph four, line two, incorrectly referenced "prayer clause (b)" when it should have stated "prayer clause (c)". The court corrected this inadvertent error, keeping the rest of the original order unchanged. This clarification order is deemed part of the 16.04.2026 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. PatilView PDF

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCA/127/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Bombay issued a clarification order correcting a typographical error in its previous order dated 16.04.2026. Paragraph four, line two, incorrectly referenced "prayer clause (b)" when it should have stated "prayer clause (c)". The court corrected this inadvertent error, keeping the rest of the original order unchanged. This clarification order is deemed part of the 16.04.2026 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case