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.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010530362023

e-Filing Number

09-11-2023

Filing Number

WP/31396/2023

Filing Date

09-Nov-2023

Registration No

CRA/460/2024

Registration Date

04-Dec-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

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section NA
Presidency Small Causes Court Act Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.REKHA HARSHAD GANDHI

    Adv. Aarti

  2. 2.HITESH HARSHAD GANDHI

  3. 3.DAKSHINA TEJAS SETH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA SHANTILAL GANDHI Advocate - PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL, ,PARMAR JAYANT VIRCHANDLAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    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.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    -For Settlement-

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  7. 12-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  9. 06-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  10. 06-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  11. 02-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  13. 26-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

  14. 26-Aug-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  15. 11-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

  16. 11-Aug-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  17. 14-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

  18. 20-Dec-2024

    —View PDF

  19. 20-Dec-2024

    For Final Hearing

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  20. 25-Oct-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  21. 25-Oct-2024

    Final Disposal At The Stage Of Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  22. 09-Oct-2024

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  23. 25-Sep-2024

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  24. 25-Sep-2024

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  25. 11-Sep-2024

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  26. 06-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  27. 06-Sep-2024

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  28. 14-Dec-2023

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

  29. 14-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 09-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/460/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case