M/S MIRAJGAVE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VENJANE TUKARAM M. vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANOTHER — CA/4271/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030117752025

Filing Number

CA/8957/2025

Filing Date

19-Mar-2025

Registration No

CA/4271/2025

Registration Date

15-Apr-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S MIRAJGAVE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VENJANE TUKARAM M.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

    Adv. AGP For R. No. 1 (waives). 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. SuryawanshiView PDF

    Summary of CA/4271/2025 The Bombay High Court allowed Mirajgave Construction's review application, modifying its earlier order to permit the petitioner legal recourse against CIDCO's adverse orders. The court found CIDCO acted unfairly by admitting all factual allegations in its July 2022 order but still rejecting the petitioner's request due to a missing formal signature, despite CIDCO having already acted upon the agreement; the court held CIDCO was estopped from denying the 1994 agreement and imposed ₹50,000 costs on CIDCO. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi , Hon'ble Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi,hon'ble Justice Vaishali Patil-JadhavView PDF

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker , Hon'ble Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker , Hon'ble Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav

  7. 20-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

  8. 20-Nov-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

  9. 06-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

  10. 06-Nov-2025

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

  11. 03-Oct-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

  12. 13-Aug-2025

    Due Orders -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  13. 30-Jul-2025

    Due Orders -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  14. 16-Jul-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  15. 25-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar,hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. DhoteView PDF

  16. 25-Jun-2025

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  17. 11-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat,hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. DhoteView PDF

  18. 11-Jun-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More

  19. 16-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat,hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. MoreView PDF

  20. 16-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 19-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CA/4271/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CA/4271/2025 The Bombay High Court allowed Mirajgave Construction's review application, modifying its earlier order to permit the petitioner legal recourse against CIDCO's adverse orders. The court found CIDCO acted unfairly by admitting all factual allegations in its July 2022 order but still rejecting the petitioner's request due to a missing formal signature, despite CIDCO having already acted upon the agreement; the court held CIDCO was estopped from denying the 1994 agreement and imposed ₹50,000 costs on CIDCO. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case