RAJENDRA B ASHAR vs THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND ORS — WP/6528/2026

Case under Mah. Co-op. Soc. Act Section NA. Next hearing: 13th July 2026.

Next hearing 13-Jul-2026

CNR: HCBM010234082026

Filing Number

WP/13684/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

WP/6528/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

Cooperative Socities ( 103 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Co-op. Soc. Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA B ASHAR

    Adv. Ankit Ramgopal Tripathi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND ORS

  2. 2.SAPTATARANG CO-OP. HOS. SOC. LTD.

  3. 3.THE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOC.

  4. 4.SPECIAL RECOVERY AND SALES OFFICER, THE MUMBAI DIST, CO-OP. HOS. FEDERATIONS LTD.

Case History

  1. 13-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 13-Jul-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  3. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/6528/2026 The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to petitioner Rajendra B. Ashar in his challenge to a deficit stamp duty demand under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Court found that authorities could not direct the petitioner to pay stamp duty without first adjudicating whether his property actually had unpaid deficit duty, especially when 12 other members had already settled their obligations. Notice was issued to respondents, returnable July 13, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 08-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6528/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/6528/2026 The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to petitioner Rajendra B. Ashar in his challenge to a deficit stamp duty demand under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Court found that authorities could not direct the petitioner to pay stamp duty without first adjudicating whether his property actually had unpaid deficit duty, especially when 12 other members had already settled their obligations. Notice was issued to respondents, returnable July 13, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case