Ranjul Premananda Goswami HARISH SHROFF AND CO vs Urban Horse Property Developers Pvt Ltd — IA/38780/2025

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section Order22. Next hearing: 08th January 2026.

Next hearing 08-Jan-2026

CNR: HCBM010657112025

e-Filing Number

18-12-2025

Filing Number

IA/40347/2025

Filing Date

18-Dec-2025

Registration No

IA/38780/2025

Registration Date

23-Dec-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section Order22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ranjul Premananda Goswami HARISH SHROFF AND CO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Urban Horse Property Developers Pvt Ltd

  2. 2.Dipak Tanna

  3. 3.VINOD PURNMAL BANSAL

  4. 4.PRATIBHA VINOD BANSAL

  5. 5.KUNAL VINOD BANSAL

  6. 6.DIPTI VINOD BANSAL

Case History

  1. 08-Jan-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    Case Summary: IA 38780/2025 Outcome: Second Appeal Dismissed The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellants' (apartment owners) second appeal against a lower court judgment. The appellants sought to restrain developers from demolishing a compound wall and reducing access width to their residential blocks. The court found that the appellants failed to establish easementary rights over the adjoining plot and did not plead their case under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. Both the trial and appellate courts' findings were upheld as legally sound, with no infirmity identified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/38780/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: IA 38780/2025 Outcome: Second Appeal Dismissed The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellants' (apartment owners) second appeal against a lower court judgment. The appellants sought to restrain developers from demolishing a compound wall and reducing access width to their residential blocks. The court found that the appellants failed to establish easementary rights over the adjoining plot and did not plead their case under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. Both the trial and appellate courts' findings were upheld as legally sound, with no infirmity identified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case