BIOREDDY MARKETUM PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GOVYAM VYANKATRAO REDDY vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — WP/5607/2016
Case under Act Not Known. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 21st April 2026.
CNR: HCBM030206632016
Next Hearing
10th June 2016
Filing Number
WP/16810/2016
Filing Date
13-05-2016
Registration No
WP/5607/2016
Registration Date
24-05-2016
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BIOREDDY MARKETUM PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GOVYAM VYANKATRAO REDDY
Adv. Advocate- ,DHOBALE NITIN L.
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Adv. GP FOR R/ 1 AND 2 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
FOR ORDERS - COPIES NOT SUPPLIED -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - AFTER NOTICE [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS]
FOR FINAL HEARING - CIVIL
URGENT CIRCULATION [ AFTER NOTICE ]
URGENT ORDERS (CIVIL)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2016 | FOR ORDERS - COPIES NOT SUPPLIED -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 23-01-2017 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - AFTER NOTICE [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS] |
| 06-02-2017 | FOR FINAL HEARING - CIVIL |
| 14-07-2016 | URGENT CIRCULATION [ AFTER NOTICE ] |
| 24-06-2016 | URGENT ORDERS (CIVIL) |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Writ Petition No. 5607 of 2016 filed by Bioreddy Marketum Pvt Ltd for want of prosecution. The petitioner's counsel stated the petitioner had withdrawn his powers and sent notice via RPAD, but neither the power of attorney was formally withdrawn nor was alternative counsel engaged. Since the petitioner showed no interest in pursuing the matter, the court dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Writ Petition No. 5607 of 2016 filed by Bioreddy Marketum Pvt Ltd for want of prosecution. The petitioner's counsel stated the petitioner had withdrawn his powers and sent notice via RPAD, but neither the power of attorney was formally withdrawn nor was alternative counsel engaged. Since the petitioner showed no interest in pursuing the matter, the court dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts