M/S RAJMUDRA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR vs SANJAY KAPADNIS — CP/630/2015
Case under Bombay Provincial Mun.cor Act 1949. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030316222015
Filing Number
CP/25012/2015
Filing Date
26-Aug-2015
Registration No
CP/630/2015
Registration Date
04-Nov-2015
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
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S RAJMUDRA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR
Adv. Katneshwarkar S.P.,SOMAN AMAR D. AND G. V. PADALKAR FOR PETITIONER,SOMAN AMAR D. AND G. V. PADALKAR FOR PETITIONER, ADV A D SOMAN AND G V PADALKAR FOR PETITIONER,SOMAN AMAR D. AND G. V. PADALKAR FOR PETITIONER
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANJAY KAPADNIS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-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 the continuation petition filed by Rajmudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd. Despite the petitioner's counsel arguing that their representation remained undecided, the court found that an order from 2012 combined with the petitioner's prolonged absence indicated the representation had been decided. The petition was dismissed as nothing survived due to passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2020
Await Notices -CIVIL Side Matters
According To Sitting List
-
03-Apr-2018
Hon'ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. GavhaneView PDF
-
03-Apr-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Aug-2015
Case filed
Registration No. CP/630/2015
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the continuation petition filed by Rajmudra Real Estate Pvt Ltd. Despite the petitioner's counsel arguing that their representation remained undecided, the court found that an order from 2012 combined with the petitioner's prolonged absence indicated the representation had been decided. The petition was dismissed as nothing survived due to passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts