MANOJ PADAMPRASAD JAIN AND 11 ORS. vs BHIKCHAND LOKIMAL AGRAWAL AND 3 ORS. — HCBM20154862023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM020154862023
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
CONP/15480/2023
Filing Date
09-06-2023
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Original
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANOJ PADAMPRASAD JAIN AND 11 ORS.
Adv. Dharmendra Jitendra Damani
ANITA B JAIN
SUMEET B JAIN
SUNITA M JAIN
KULDEEP PADAMPRASAD JAIN
VIRENDRA KUMAR DIXIT
SURENDRA D AGRAWAL
VEENA R AGRAWAL
HEMLATA D JAVERI
KANTI VIRENDRA DIXIT
DUNGERSHI LAKHAMSHI GANGAR
SUDESH R AGRAWAL
Respondent(s)
BHIKCHAND LOKIMAL AGRAWAL AND 3 ORS.
AARYADEEP BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
Adv. SANJAY ANANT GHAISAS,SNG AND PARTNERS
AARYADEEP BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
Adv. SANJAY ANANT GHAISAS,SNG AND PARTNERS
ALAKNATH R SINGH
Adv. SANJAY ANANT GHAISAS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
CONTEMPT MATTERS
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-10-2023 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
| 02-08-2023 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 31-08-2023 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 24-02-2025 | CONTEMPT MATTERS |
| 01-07-2025 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
Orders
Case Summary Contempt Petition (L) No. 15480 of 2023 – The Bombay High Court adjourned the contempt petition to June 17, 2026. The Court confirmed Vis Legis Law Practice as the authorized advocates for petitioner Manoj Jain, and granted respondents a final opportunity to file their replies (two respondents having already filed theirs). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Contempt Petition (L) No. 15480 of 2023 – The Bombay High Court adjourned the contempt petition to June 17, 2026. The Court confirmed Vis Legis Law Practice as the authorized advocates for petitioner Manoj Jain, and granted respondents a final opportunity to file their replies (two respondents having already filed theirs). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts