V M CONSTRUCTIONS vs NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Advocate - Tejesh Dande — WP/6053/2026

Case under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section na. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM010215262026

Filing Number

WP/12553/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/6053/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Bench Type

Division

Category

LOCAL BODY MATTERS OTHER THAN ELECTION, LABOUR AND SERVICE ( 61 )

Sub-Category

Municipal Corporation ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section na

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V M CONSTRUCTIONS

    Adv. Jeetenndra Sachddev

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Advocate - Tejesh Dande

  2. 2.ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING

    Adv. Tejesh Dande

  3. 3.THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD.

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF

    Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 6053 of 2026 filed by V. M. Constructions against Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others was adjourned on 6th May 2026. The High Court of Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) could not take up the matter for hearing due to paucity of time and heavy board matters. The petitioner was granted liberty to move before the Vacation Bench. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6053/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 6053 of 2026 filed by V. M. Constructions against Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others was adjourned on 6th May 2026. The High Court of Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) could not take up the matter for hearing due to paucity of time and heavy board matters. The petitioner was granted liberty to move before the Vacation Bench. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case