RAMESH GANPAT JADHAV AND ANR vs APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE AND 6 ORS — WP/1510/2021

Case under Mah. Slum Areas Act Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020148412021

Filing Number

WP/14776/2021

Filing Date

08-Jul-2021

Registration No

WP/1510/2021

Registration Date

28-Jul-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Slum Areas Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMESH GANPAT JADHAV AND ANR

    Adv. Jayesh Ramesh Vyas

  2. 2.JOHN DSOUZA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE AND 6 ORS

  2. 2.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

    Adv. Vijay Dinkarrao Patil

  3. 3.VISHNU BALDRISHNA BHALEKAR

  4. 4.VIHAN MITUL DOSHI

  5. 5.HARE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS

    Adv. Wadia Ghandy and Co.

  6. 6.K. DEVI HOUSING

  7. 7.AAI KADESHWARI SRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF

    The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition after the petitioners' counsel indicated the matter had been settled, while respondent No.5 argued the petition was infructuous as the underlying project was nearly complete. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to apply if they could demonstrate the matter remained unsettled or the cause of action still survived. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

  4. 08-Jul-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1510/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition after the petitioners' counsel indicated the matter had been settled, while respondent No.5 argued the petition was infructuous as the underlying project was nearly complete. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to apply if they could demonstrate the matter remained unsettled or the cause of action still survived. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case