THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT PLEADER. vs HANYA BABADA and ORS. — CA/3177/2002
Case under All India Services Act 1951. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM030018862002
Filing Number
CA/6958/2002
Filing Date
01-Jan-2002
Registration No
CA/3177/2002
Registration Date
20-Jun-2002
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT PLEADER.
Respondent(s)
-
1.HANYA BABADA and ORS.
Adv. R/1 TO 35,37 TO 41,44 TO 48,50 TO 61,63 TO 70, 1123
Case History
-
17-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
17-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. DeshmukhView PDF
CA/3177/2002 Summary: The State of Maharashtra's application for condonation of 694 days delay in filing a first appeal was rejected by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 17 June 2026. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to justify the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and concluded the delay was deliberately caused. The accompanying stay application (CA 3178/2002) was disposed as infructuous, and court fees were ordered refunded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Jun-2026
For Orders
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
-
25-Aug-2020
For Orders [Civil Side Matters]
According To Sitting List
-
01-Mar-2011
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,hon'ble Shri Justice D B BhosaleView PDF
-
01-Mar-2011
For Orders -Unserved Notice-CIVIL Side Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde , Hon'ble Shri Justice D B Bhosale
-
14-Feb-2011
Due Admission -CIVIL
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude
-
07-Feb-2011
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Jan-2002
Case filed
Registration No. CA/3177/2002
CA/3177/2002 Summary: The State of Maharashtra's application for condonation of 694 days delay in filing a first appeal was rejected by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 17 June 2026. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to justify the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and concluded the delay was deliberately caused. The accompanying stay application (CA 3178/2002) was disposed as infructuous, and court fees were ordered refunded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts