CRESCENT ENTERTAINMENT AND TOURISM LTD vs SANJAY KAPADNIS AND ANOTHERS Advocate - Bora Satyajit S. — CP/635/2015
Case under Mah.regional Town Planning Act 1966. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030316262015
Filing Number
CP/25016/2015
Filing Date
26-Aug-2015
Registration No
CP/635/2015
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.CRESCENT ENTERTAINMENT AND TOURISM LTD
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 AND ANOTHERS Advocate - Bora Satyajit S.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the contempt petition filed by Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd, finding that the petitioner's representation from 2011 had been decided and the petitioner's prolonged absence indicated no live matter remained. The court disposed of the petition as nothing survives 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
-
02-Apr-2018
Hon'ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. GavhaneView PDF
-
02-Apr-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Aug-2015
Case filed
Registration No. CP/635/2015
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the contempt petition filed by Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd, finding that the petitioner's representation from 2011 had been decided and the petitioner's prolonged absence indicated no live matter remained. The court disposed of the petition as nothing survives due to passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts