M/S. PRIME ARCADE PVT. LTD. vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 7 ORS Advocate - Minal Vijay Chavan, RES NO. 6,GP OS,RES NO 01,Ritesh Kishormal Jain,RESP NO.7,Vijay D Patil,RESP NO.2 TO 4 — WP/44/2017

Case under Mah. Slum Areas Act. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 27th April 2018.

CNR: HCBM020250122016

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

10th October 2016

Filing Number

WP/2627/2016

Filing Date

01-10-2016

Registration No

WP/44/2017

Registration Date

06-01-2017

Judge

REGISTRY DISPOSAL (OS)

Coram

REGISTRY DISPOSAL (OS)

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

27th April 2018

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Mah. Slum Areas Act

Petitioner(s)

M/S. PRIME ARCADE PVT. LTD.

Adv. Chandrakant N Gole

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 7 ORS Advocate - Minal Vijay Chavan, RES NO. 6,GP OS,RES NO 01,Ritesh Kishormal Jain,RESP NO.7,Vijay D Patil,RESP NO.2 TO 4

SLUM REHABLITATION AUTHORITY

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

THE ASST. REGISTRAR, C. S.

THE ASST. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

SHREE GANESH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED)

HERAMB CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED)

THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE

Hearing History

Judge: REGISTRY DISPOSAL (OS)

10-10-2016

FOR PRODUCTION

02-12-2020

FOR ADMISSION

19-04-2018

FOR ADMISSION

12-04-2018

FOR ADMISSION

12-01-2018

FOR PRODUCTION

Orders

26-10-2016
17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by M/s. Prime Arcade Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of the petition, which the court granted, noting that the petition had already been disposed of with compliance recorded, and directed that it not be relisted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by M/s. Prime Arcade Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of the petition, which the court granted, noting that the petition had already been disposed of with compliance recorded, and directed that it not be relisted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case