Sayan Mondal vs The University of Mumbai, Through its Registrar — IA/3511/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010223882026

e-Filing Number

30-04-2026

Filing Number

IA/13059/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

IA/3511/2026

Registration Date

05-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
University Act (Maharashtra) Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sayan Mondal

    Adv. NARGOLKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The University of Mumbai, Through its Registrar

  2. 2.The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court granted Sayan Mondal's interim application, directing his college to allow him to appear in May 2026 examinations for one pending 2nd year subject and his entire 3rd year course, provided the college verifies he has cleared all 1st year backlogs, 10 of 11 second year subjects, and met attendance requirements. The court also required the college to be added as a party respondent to the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3511/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court granted Sayan Mondal's interim application, directing his college to allow him to appear in May 2026 examinations for one pending 2nd year subject and his entire 3rd year course, provided the college verifies he has cleared all 1st year backlogs, 10 of 11 second year subjects, and met attendance requirements. The court also required the college to be added as a party respondent to the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case