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

Transfer Matter Section 24

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

07-05-2026

PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CIVIL SIDE MATTERS

18-06-2026

Orders

07-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case