M/s. Bhagvati Trading co. Partnership Firm, Partner- Dhinal Arvindbhai Patel vs New India Engineering Corporation, Owner- Rajni Manhar Bhagat Advocate - M R PATWA — 95/2023
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Section 12. Status: PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
SMCST - SMALL CAUSE SUIT
CNR: GJAH030006242023
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Number
95/2023
Filing Date
20-04-2023
Registration No
95/2023
Registration Date
20-04-2023
Court
SMALL CAUSE COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
2-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s. Bhagvati Trading co. Partnership Firm, Partner- Dhinal Arvindbhai Patel
Adv. J D PATEL
Respondent(s)
New India Engineering Corporation, Owner- Rajni Manhar Bhagat Advocate - M R PATWA
New Manekchok Taxtiles Mils unit of National Taxtiles Corporation
Adv. J J GAJJAR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE |
| 06-02-2026 | PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE |
| 31-12-2025 | PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE |
| 12-11-2025 | PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
The petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to obtain a decree for specific performance regarding disputed immovable property is rejected/dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as crucial documents supporting ownership and the balance of convenience were not properly submitted, and the defendant successfully disputed the plaintiff's claims regarding property ownership and transaction authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to obtain a decree for specific performance regarding disputed immovable property is rejected/dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as crucial documents supporting ownership and the balance of convenience were not properly submitted, and the defendant successfully disputed the plaintiff's claims regarding property ownership and transaction authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts