MANJEET SINGH T. ANAND vs NISHANT ENTERPRISES HUF HINDU UNDVIDED FAMILY THROUGH ITS KARTA BEING RESPONDENT NO 2 — COMEX/19/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act Section ORDER,21. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM020130702024
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
16-04-2024
Filing Number
COMEX/13065/2024
Filing Date
16-04-2024
Registration No
COMEX/19/2025
Registration Date
28-02-2025
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
Bench Type
Single
Category
EXECUTION ( 15 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANJEET SINGH T. ANAND
Adv. Aniket Ravindranath Worlikar,Aniket Ravindranath Worlikar,Aniket Ravindranath Worlikar, Aniket Ravindranath Worlikar
Respondent(s)
NISHANT ENTERPRISES HUF HINDU UNDVIDED FAMILY THROUGH ITS KARTA BEING RESPONDENT NO 2
Adv. Gauri Rao 1123
VIJAY G. PATIL
Adv. Neuty N Thakkar
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
PART-HEARD
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-02-2025 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
| 06-03-2025 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
| 12-06-2026 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
| 25-08-2025 | PART-HEARD |
| 01-08-2025 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
Orders
Case Summary: COMEX 19/2025 The Bombay High Court adjourned the contempt petition and connected commercial execution matter to 12th June 2026. The petitioner alleged non-disclosure and an outstanding liability of Rs. 15.5 crores, while the respondents' counsel requested time for instructions. The court directed Respondent No. 2 to remain present at the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: COMEX 19/2025 The Bombay High Court adjourned the contempt petition and connected commercial execution matter to 12th June 2026. The petitioner alleged non-disclosure and an outstanding liability of Rs. 15.5 crores, while the respondents' counsel requested time for instructions. The court directed Respondent No. 2 to remain present at the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts