GHANSHYAMDAS S/O. GOPALDAS MOHTA vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF LAXMI BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), NAGPUR — CAL/3/2020
Case under Other Act. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 26th March 2026.
CNR: HCBM040007462020
Filing Number
CAL/552/2020
Filing Date
08-Jan-2020
Registration No
CAL/3/2020
Registration Date
10-Jan-2020
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor , Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor , Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
--ALLOWED
Last updated 25-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GHANSHYAMDAS S/O. GOPALDAS MOHTA
Adv. SHAMAL JANAK KADU
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF LAXMI BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), NAGPUR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor,hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. WakodeView PDF
The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed the application to remove the court receiver's name from the property card of a marble house (Sheet No.159, City Survey No.336, Nagpur) in the liquidation proceedings of Laxmi Bank Limited, as the Official Liquidator confirmed the property was not required for winding-up proceedings and consented to its return to the owners. Additionally, the court allowed a separate application and directed the applicant to add the intervenor as a respondent within three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2023
For Orders-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo , Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi
-
24-Mar-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo,hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF
-
17-Mar-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2020
Case filed
Registration No. CAL/3/2020
The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed the application to remove the court receiver's name from the property card of a marble house (Sheet No.159, City Survey No.336, Nagpur) in the liquidation proceedings of Laxmi Bank Limited, as the Official Liquidator confirmed the property was not required for winding-up proceedings and consented to its return to the owners. Additionally, the court allowed a separate application and directed the applicant to add the intervenor as a respondent within three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts