DRISHTI HOSPITALITY CO. PVT.LTD. AND ANR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PLEADER APPELLATE SIDE AND ORS. — WP/15019/2023

Case under Bombay Public Trust Act 1960 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th February 2026.

CNR: HCBM010471102023

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/27993/2023

Filing Date

11-10-2023

Registration No

WP/15019/2023

Registration Date

02-12-2023

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

25th February 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Bombay Public Trust Act 1960 Section 226

Petitioner(s)

DRISHTI HOSPITALITY CO. PVT.LTD. AND ANR

Adv. KASHMIRA SANGHVI

AMAL MAJMUDAR

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PLEADER APPELLATE SIDE AND ORS.

THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI

Adv. GP WRIT CELL

UNITOUCH CREATION LLP, LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, MUMBAI

Adv. Jain Law Partners LLP

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

13-02-2024

FOR CIRCULATION

25-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION

24-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION

15-01-2026

FOR ADMISSION

08-12-2025

FOR ADMISSION

Orders

15-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

The Bombay High Court rejected Respondent No. 3's oral application seeking extension of time to conclude proceedings before the Charity Commissioner, finding that the amendment application was deliberately filed one day before the court-imposed deadline of April 10, 2026, indicating intent to delay proceedings. The court upheld the Charity Commissioner's decision to decline consideration of the amendment application and ruled that no extension could be granted in the disposed writ petition without a formal interim application, though Respondent No. 3 remains free to pursue separate proceedings to challenge the non-consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court rejected Respondent No. 3's oral application seeking extension of time to conclude proceedings before the Charity Commissioner, finding that the amendment application was deliberately filed one day before the court-imposed deadline of April 10, 2026, indicating intent to delay proceedings. The court upheld the Charity Commissioner's decision to decline consideration of the amendment application and ruled that no extension could be granted in the disposed writ petition without a formal interim application, though Respondent No. 3 remains free to pursue separate proceedings to challenge the non-consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case