BADRIPRASAD RAMMURAT DUBE DIRECTOR OF VRJESHWARI STEEL PVT.LTD vs DEPUTY C.M.M Advocate - T S DAMOR — 4/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 7,12,38,39,. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

COMM CS - COMMERCIAL CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJDH020069812025

ISSUES

Next Hearing

20th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

4/2025

Filing Date

10-10-2025

Registration No

4/2025

Registration Date

10-10-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT DAHOD

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 7,12,38,39,

Petitioner(s)

BADRIPRASAD RAMMURAT DUBE DIRECTOR OF VRJESHWARI STEEL PVT.LTD

Adv. A M PARIKH

Respondent(s)

DEPUTY C.M.M Advocate - T S DAMOR

LOCO WORKS MANAGER,WESTERN RAILWAY

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

07-03-2026

ISSUES

17-02-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

03-02-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

27-01-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

12-01-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

Interim Orders

07-03-2026
ORDER

Summary: The Commercial Court (Case No. 4/2025) dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application under CPC Order-39, Rule-1 and Column-191. The plaintiff, a scrap dealer, had won an auction for 25,000 kilos of copper wire (Lot No. 6101780825) conducted by the defendant railway, depositing 10% of the bid amount, but the defendant later forfeited the deposit and refused delivery, claiming the plaintiff failed to submit a valid GPCB certificate as required. The court found no prima facie case, no balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and insufficient grounds for interim relief, thus denying the plaintiff's prayer to either deliver the auctioned goods or refund the 10% deposit with interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Commercial Court (Case No. 4/2025) dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application under CPC Order-39, Rule-1 and Column-191. The plaintiff, a scrap dealer, had won an auction for 25,000 kilos of copper wire (Lot No. 6101780825) conducted by the defendant railway, depositing 10% of the bid amount, but the defendant later forfeited the deposit and refused delivery, claiming the plaintiff failed to submit a valid GPCB certificate as required. The court found no prima facie case, no balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and insufficient grounds for interim relief, thus denying the plaintiff's prayer to either deliver the auctioned goods or refund the 10% deposit with interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL COURT DAHOD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case