BALASAHEB VISHWANATH INZE AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — CA/7569/2010

Case under Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM030084892010

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

Filing Number

CA/6979/2010

Filing Date

11-03-2010

Registration No

CA/7569/2010

Registration Date

28-05-2010

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Wealth Tax Act, 1957

Petitioner(s)

BALASAHEB VISHWANATH INZE AND ORS

Adv. NANGARE PRASHANT R.

BHAUSAHEB ANANDRAO PATANE

SHANKAR YADAVRAO TWADE

BHASKAR ASHRUBA DANDGE

ANITA UTTAMRAO DESHMUKH

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

THE COMMISSIONER FOR HANDICAP WELFARE

THE SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

AZAD EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY PARBHANI THROUGH SECRETARY ALISHAH AZADKHAN

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR

27-04-2020

URGENT ORDERS -CIVIL

09-12-2010

FOR ORDERS

11-06-2026

FOR FINAL HEARING -CIVIL

06-05-2026

FOR FINAL HEARING -CIVIL

30-04-2026

FOR FINAL HEARING -CIVIL

Orders

11-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR

Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) adjourned the writ petition wherein petitioners, former employees of a school closed in 2000 now reopened under new management, sought appointment. A factual dispute exists: respondent No. 5 claims petitioners resigned in 2001, while petitioners deny this and respondent No. 4 denies receiving any resignations. The court directed respondent No. 5 to file an affidavit in reply and stood over the case to 30.09.2026 for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) adjourned the writ petition wherein petitioners, former employees of a school closed in 2000 now reopened under new management, sought appointment. A factual dispute exists: respondent No. 5 claims petitioners resigned in 2001, while petitioners deny this and respondent No. 4 denies receiving any resignations. The court directed respondent No. 5 to file an affidavit in reply and stood over the case to 30.09.2026 for further proceedings. 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