THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECY., WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND ORS. vs M/S D. THAKKAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., THR. CHAIRMAN OF MONITORING COMM. R. R. KANOONGO — WP/4449/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040164792026
Next Hearing
13th June 2026
e-Filing Number
07-05-2026
Filing Number
WP/11244/2026
Filing Date
12-05-2026
Registration No
WP/4449/2026
Registration Date
01-06-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT WASUDEO JOSHI
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT WASUDEO JOSHI
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
08th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECY., WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND ORS.
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VIDC), THR. EX. DIRECTOR, NAPGUR
CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AMRAVATI
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (UPPER WARDHA IRRIGATION CIRCLE), AMRAVATI
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AMRAVATI MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION), AMRAVATI
Respondent(s)
M/S D. THAKKAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., THR. CHAIRMAN OF MONITORING COMM. R. R. KANOONGO
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT WASUDEO JOSHI
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-06-2026 |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/4449/2026 The High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed Maharashtra State's writ petition challenging a District Court order that refused to permit filing a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court rejected the State's argument that administrative exigencies and its status as a government party warranted an extension, holding that the Commercial Courts Act applies uniformly to all litigants regardless of whether they are state or non-state parties, and the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory deadline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/4449/2026 The High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed Maharashtra State's writ petition challenging a District Court order that refused to permit filing a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court rejected the State's argument that administrative exigencies and its status as a government party warranted an extension, holding that the Commercial Courts Act applies uniformly to all litigants regardless of whether they are state or non-state parties, and the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory deadline. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts