SAU. VANDANA W/O RAMESH SAHASTRABUDDHE vs SAU. JAYASHREE W/O ANIL SABLE — MCA/291/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 114. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 03-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM040143912026

Filing Number

MCA/9763/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCA/291/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 114

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAU. VANDANA W/O RAMESH SAHASTRABUDDHE

    Adv. V.G. BHAMBURKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAU. JAYASHREE W/O ANIL SABLE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    —

  3. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

    Case Summary: MCA/291/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) rejected Vandana's review application challenging the dismissal of her specific performance suit. The court upheld concurrent findings that Vandana failed to prove readiness and willingness to complete a 2010 property purchase agreement, as she provided no evidence of selling another property to fund the outstanding Rs.12 lakh balance. The court rejected her argument that a court deposit of Rs.12 lakh in 2015 demonstrated such readiness, as deposits made years after the target completion date do not establish timely willingness to perform. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 08-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  6. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCA/291/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCA/291/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) rejected Vandana's review application challenging the dismissal of her specific performance suit. The court upheld concurrent findings that Vandana failed to prove readiness and willingness to complete a 2010 property purchase agreement, as she provided no evidence of selling another property to fund the outstanding Rs.12 lakh balance. The court rejected her argument that a court deposit of Rs.12 lakh in 2015 demonstrated such readiness, as deposits made years after the target completion date do not establish timely willingness to perform. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case