VAISHALI VISHAL SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHER DNYANESHWAR SURESH BAGUL vs VISHAL ANIL SURYANWANSHI — MCA/127/2026
Case under Transfer Matter Section 24. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM030180982026
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
01-05-2026
Filing Number
MCA/13457/2026
Filing Date
04-05-2026
Registration No
MCA/127/2026
Registration Date
06-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VAISHALI VISHAL SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHER DNYANESHWAR SURESH BAGUL
LAXMI VISHAL SURYAWANSHI
Respondent(s)
VISHAL ANIL SURYANWANSHI
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 18-06-2026 |
Orders
Case Summary: MCA/127/2026 The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rejected the applicants' prayer for stay of civil proceedings pending before the Civil Judge at Malegaon, Nashik. Justice Abhay J. Mantri held that there was no necessity to stay proceedings, particularly given the availability of video conferencing. The court noted that personal appearance is not mandatory in such proceedings unless specifically directed by the trial court, and advocates can effectively prosecute matters in the parties' absence. Notice was issued to the respondent returnable on June 18, 2026, with the court indicating it will positively consider any future application for video conference participation filed before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MCA/127/2026 The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rejected the applicants' prayer for stay of civil proceedings pending before the Civil Judge at Malegaon, Nashik. Justice Abhay J. Mantri held that there was no necessity to stay proceedings, particularly given the availability of video conferencing. The court noted that personal appearance is not mandatory in such proceedings unless specifically directed by the trial court, and advocates can effectively prosecute matters in the parties' absence. Notice was issued to the respondent returnable on June 18, 2026, with the court indicating it will positively consider any future application for video conference participation filed before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts