AKSHAY NARENDRA PUNEKAR vs SAMRADHNYA AKSHAY PUNEKAR AND ANR — IA/1994/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010285452026

Filing Number

IA/11772/2026

Filing Date

17-Jun-2026

Registration No

IA/1994/2026

Registration Date

18-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc)
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AKSHAY NARENDRA PUNEKAR

    Adv. Nikhil Manohar Pujari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAMRADHNYA AKSHAY PUNEKAR AND ANR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. SathayeView PDF

    Summary: The Bombay High Court allowed Akshay Narendra Punekar's interim application to restore his dismissed writ petition. The petition had been dismissed on 12.06.2026 for want of prosecution due to a clerical error where the advocate's surname was misspelled in the cause list and court record, preventing the matter from being located. Finding the restoration application filed within three days constituted sufficient cause and recognizing the bona-fide mistake, the court recalled the dismissal order, restored the writ petition for hearing on merits, and directed the registry to correct the advocate's surname in its records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye

  4. 17-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/1994/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Bombay High Court allowed Akshay Narendra Punekar's interim application to restore his dismissed writ petition. The petition had been dismissed on 12.06.2026 for want of prosecution due to a clerical error where the advocate's surname was misspelled in the cause list and court record, preventing the matter from being located. Finding the restoration application filed within three days constituted sufficient cause and recognizing the bona-fide mistake, the court recalled the dismissal order, restored the writ petition for hearing on merits, and directed the registry to correct the advocate's surname in its records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case