MEHBOOB KHAN AZIZ KHAN vs G M MUGLIKAR AND ANOTHER Advocate - SHAH JAYANT RAMANLAL — CP/466/2017
Case under Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Writ Pet. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030235812017
Filing Number
CP/19495/2017
Filing Date
12-Jun-2017
Registration No
CP/466/2017
Registration Date
24-Aug-2017
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
04-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MEHBOOB KHAN AZIZ KHAN
Adv. Kazi S S
Respondent(s)
-
1.G M MUGLIKAR AND ANOTHER Advocate - SHAH JAYANT RAMANLAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of Contempt Petitions 465 and 466 of 2017 on the basis that the petitioner's counsel confirmed compliance with the contempt orders in both petitions. The court found no further action necessary and accordingly closed both proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2020
Due Admission -CIVIL
According To Sitting List
-
24-Nov-2017
Due Admission CIVIL
Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane
-
03-Nov-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
-
03-Nov-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha KankanwadiView PDF
-
29-Sep-2017
Await Notices -CIVIL Side Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala , Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil
-
29-Aug-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. GavhaneView PDF
-
29-Aug-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Jun-2017
Case filed
Registration No. CP/466/2017
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of Contempt Petitions 465 and 466 of 2017 on the basis that the petitioner's counsel confirmed compliance with the contempt orders in both petitions. The court found no further action necessary and accordingly closed both proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts