Enam Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Union of India — CHOL/278/2026

Case under Limitation Act,1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020093572026

e-Filing Number

12-03-2026

Filing Number

CHOL/9356/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

CHOL/278/2026

Registration Date

06-Apr-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

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act,1963 Section 5
C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Enam Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Union of India

  2. 2.State of Maharashtra

  3. 3.Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-May-2026

    Registrar(os)/Prothonotary and Sr. MasterView PDF

    The Bombay High Court granted the petitioner a final extension until 15.05.2026 to remove office objections and register the Writ Petition, after the petitioner paid the required cost. The petition will be automatically rejected for non-compliance under O.S.Rule 986 if the petitioner fails to comply by the extended deadline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

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

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    For Hearing And Final Disposal

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

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CHOL/278/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court granted the petitioner a final extension until 15.05.2026 to remove office objections and register the Writ Petition, after the petitioner paid the required cost. The petition will be automatically rejected for non-compliance under O.S.Rule 986 if the petitioner fails to comply by the extended deadline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case