SURENDRA LAXMAN RAVAL vs SHANKAR DUTT AND 6 ORS. AND PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. (INTERVENER) — CHS/1027/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 25th November 2019.
CNR: HCBM020209702017
Filing Number
CHS/1121/2017
Filing Date
24-Aug-2017
Registration No
CHS/1027/2017
Registration Date
02-Nov-2017
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
Bench Type
Single
Category
SUITS ( 38 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
25-Nov-2019
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 10-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SURENDRA LAXMAN RAVAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHANKAR DUTT AND 6 ORS. AND PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. (INTERVENER)
Adv. INTERVERNER 1123
-
2.GIRIJA SHANKAR DUTT
-
3.MANISH G PANDEY
-
4.RASHMIN PATTANI
-
5.HEMANT T SHAH
-
6.THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
-
7.M/S. ANG ASSOCIATES
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay AhujaView PDF
The Bombay High Court dismissed Suit No. 1848 of 2008 (Surendra Laxman Raval v. Shankar Dutt & Ors.) for non-prosecution on 9th April, 2026. The suit was dismissed because the plaintiff had passed away and no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff or his legal heirs on the scheduled hearing date, despite prior notice that the matter would be listed for dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Nov-2019
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
-
25-Nov-2019
Notice Of Motion For Hearing [Original Side Matters]
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
-
25-Nov-2019
Notice Of Motion For Hearing [Original Side Matters]
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
-
11-Nov-2019
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
-
11-Nov-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
31-Oct-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
-
24-Aug-2017
Case filed
Registration No. CHS/1027/2017
The Bombay High Court dismissed Suit No. 1848 of 2008 (Surendra Laxman Raval v. Shankar Dutt & Ors.) for non-prosecution on 9th April, 2026. The suit was dismissed because the plaintiff had passed away and no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff or his legal heirs on the scheduled hearing date, despite prior notice that the matter would be listed for dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts