DINESH S/O. YOGESHWAR NANDANWAR vs THE UNION OF INDIA, THR. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILASPUR AND ANR. — CAO/288/2026

Case under Other Act Section 00. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 23-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM040068432026

Filing Number

CAO/4806/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

CAO/288/2026

Registration Date

01-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Act Section 00
The Central Administrative Tribunal

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DINESH S/O. YOGESHWAR NANDANWAR

    Adv. NISHA GAJBHIYE(WASNIK)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, THR. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILASPUR AND ANR.

  2. 2.DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTH EAST RAILWAY KINGSWAY, NAGPUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    —

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed the petitioner's application to condone a 20-day delay in filing a restoration application for a writ petition whose registration was refused due to failure to remove office objections. The court found the delay was unintentional, as the petitioner lacked knowledge of the Registrar's conditional order dated 12.01.2026. The court granted the petitioner two weeks to remove the office objections, after which the writ petition would be restored for merit-based consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CAO/288/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed the petitioner's application to condone a 20-day delay in filing a restoration application for a writ petition whose registration was refused due to failure to remove office objections. The court found the delay was unintentional, as the petitioner lacked knowledge of the Registrar's conditional order dated 12.01.2026. The court granted the petitioner two weeks to remove the office objections, after which the writ petition would be restored for merit-based consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case