YASHWANT EKNATH VYAWAHARE vs TANVI YASHWANT VYAWAHARE AND OTHERS — CA/9586/2017

Case under Indian Evidence Act 1872. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

CNR: HCBM030207452017

Next Hearing

06th July 2026

Filing Number

CA/17291/2017

Filing Date

06-05-2017

Registration No

CA/9586/2017

Registration Date

19-07-2017

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Indian Evidence Act 1872
Guardian and Wards Act 1890

Petitioner(s)

YASHWANT EKNATH VYAWAHARE

Adv. Garud N.C.

Respondent(s)

TANVI YASHWANT VYAWAHARE AND OTHERS

Adv. TEMAK RAHUL B. FOR R/3 (LEGAL GUARDIAN OF R/1 &

,R/3A TO 3C SERVED,ADV. TEMAK RAHUL BHAUSAHEB V. P FILED FOR R/3A TO R/3C 1123

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

08-08-2017

DUE ORDERS -CIVIL

28-07-2017

URGENT ORDERS (CIVIL)

24-09-2020

DUE ORDERS- CIVIL

06-07-2026
04-05-2026

Orders

04-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

CASE SUMMARY: CA 9586/2017 SKIP The document provided is a court cause list/calendar dated 04.05.2026 from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench). While Civil Application No. 9586 of 2017 (the case in question) appears in the list at item 122, the document contains only administrative scheduling information—no substantive court order, judgment, or case outcome is provided. The only operative order states that "due to paucity of time, the matters could not reach" and that "interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date" (S.O. 06.07.2026). This is merely a procedural adjournment notice, not a final or substantive resolution of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CA 9586/2017 SKIP The document provided is a court cause list/calendar dated 04.05.2026 from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench). While Civil Application No. 9586 of 2017 (the case in question) appears in the list at item 122, the document contains only administrative scheduling information—no substantive court order, judgment, or case outcome is provided. The only operative order states that "due to paucity of time, the matters could not reach" and that "interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date" (S.O. 06.07.2026). This is merely a procedural adjournment notice, not a final or substantive resolution of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case