RAHUL DNYANESHWAR SAWALKAR vs NIRMAL AGENCY, THR. PROPRITOR, NAGPUR Advocate - PRUTHVIRAJ SHYAM CHAWHAN, ,HARSHWARDHAN CHAWHAN,KHUSHAL KUMAR,(FOR RESPONDENT) — WP/1368/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040395022025
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
WP/28567/2025
Filing Date
16-12-2025
Registration No
WP/1368/2026
Registration Date
11-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
APPOINTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONARIES ( 3 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAHUL DNYANESHWAR SAWALKAR
Adv. RANJAN N. DESHPANDE,AASAVARI S KALE,AASAVARI S KALE, ,AASAVARI S KALE
Respondent(s)
NIRMAL AGENCY, THR. PROPRITOR, NAGPUR Advocate - PRUTHVIRAJ SHYAM CHAWHAN, ,HARSHWARDHAN CHAWHAN,KHUSHAL KUMAR,(FOR RESPONDENT)
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL
FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL
FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL
FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-02-2026 | |
| 18-06-2026 | FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL |
| 06-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL |
| 04-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL |
| 27-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION-LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL |
Orders
Case Summary: WP 1368/2026 - Rahul Dnyaneshwar Sawalkar vs. Nirmal Agency, Nagpur The case was heard on 06.05.2026 before Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The respondent's counsel requested time to file an affidavit-in-reply, which was granted by the court. The case was adjourned and stood over after Summer Vacation for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP 1368/2026 - Rahul Dnyaneshwar Sawalkar vs. Nirmal Agency, Nagpur The case was heard on 06.05.2026 before Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The respondent's counsel requested time to file an affidavit-in-reply, which was granted by the court. The case was adjourned and stood over after Summer Vacation for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts