REKHA HARSHAD GANDHI vs RAJENDRA SHANTILAL GANDHI Advocate - PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL, ,PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL — CRA/460/2024
Case under Constitution of India Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010530362023
e-Filing Number
09-11-2023
Filing Number
WP/31396/2023
Filing Date
09-11-2023
Registration No
CRA/460/2024
Registration Date
04-12-2023
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Appeal from Order
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
REKHA HARSHAD GANDHI
Adv. Aarti
HITESH HARSHAD GANDHI
DAKSHINA TEJAS SETH
Respondent(s)
RAJENDRA SHANTILAL GANDHI Advocate - PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL, ,PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
FOR CIRCULATION
-FOR SETTLEMENT-
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-12-2023 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 24-04-2026 | -FOR SETTLEMENT- |
| 27-01-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 12-01-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 06-01-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: CRA/460/2024 The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant, upholding concurrent findings that a licensor-licensee relationship existed between the parties. The court found the defendant made specific judicial admissions in his written statement acknowledging payment of rent/compensation to the plaintiff, and failed to effectively cross-examine the plaintiff or lead his own evidence to substantiate ownership claims, thereby binding himself to the plaintiff's version of facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRA/460/2024 The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant, upholding concurrent findings that a licensor-licensee relationship existed between the parties. The court found the defendant made specific judicial admissions in his written statement acknowledging payment of rent/compensation to the plaintiff, and failed to effectively cross-examine the plaintiff or lead his own evidence to substantiate ownership claims, thereby binding himself to the plaintiff's version of facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts