SPG INFRATAKE PRIVATE LIMITED JAIN LAW PARTNERS LLP vs The State of Maharashtra — CHOL/206/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 14. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM020051162026

e-Filing Number

10-02-2026

Filing Number

CHOL/5115/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

CHOL/206/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

Coram

Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

Bench Type

Single

Category

CHAMBER ORDER OS OFFICERS ( 64 )

Sub-Category

Restoration which are rejected under Rule 986 ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 07-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SPG INFRATAKE PRIVATE LIMITED JAIN LAW PARTNERS LLP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

  2. 2.Ld Addl Collector

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

    Summary: The Prothonotary and Senior Master adjourned the Chamber Order (CHOL/206/2026) in Writ Petition WP(L)/11482/2023 to the Hon'ble Court for appropriate directions. The applicant sought to set aside an Order dated 20.02.2024 that rejected the writ petition for non-removal of office objections, but due to a delay of 675 days in filing the present Chamber Order, the matter was deemed fit for adjournment under OS Rule 132 IX-A. The advocate was directed to take appropriate steps. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    For Hearing And Final Disposal

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CHOL/206/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Prothonotary and Senior Master adjourned the Chamber Order (CHOL/206/2026) in Writ Petition WP(L)/11482/2023 to the Hon'ble Court for appropriate directions. The applicant sought to set aside an Order dated 20.02.2024 that rejected the writ petition for non-removal of office objections, but due to a delay of 675 days in filing the present Chamber Order, the matter was deemed fit for adjournment under OS Rule 132 IX-A. The advocate was directed to take appropriate steps. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case