Patanjali Ayurved Ltd Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Nitin Janardhan Mohokar vs Santosh Nandu Bhange and 2 other Advocate - Kadam C. T. — 4/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 09th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHAH130001222024
e-Filing Number
20-02-2024
Filing Number
45/2024
Filing Date
20-02-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
20-02-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court, Newasa.
Judge
1-Dist. Judge-1 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Nitin Janardhan Mohokar
Adv. Sharma G. M.
Respondent(s)
Santosh Nandu Bhange and 2 other Advocate - Kadam C. T.
Amol Laxman Bhange
Adv. NIL
Vishnu Laxman Bhange
Adv. NIL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Dist. Judge-1 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgment | |
| 20-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Court of Ahmednagar dismissed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.'s appeal and upheld the trial court's decree requiring the company to deliver possession of 13.50 R (units of land measurement) that it encroached upon from three agricultural landowners. The court found credible evidence through cadastral surveyor measurements from both parties confirming the encroachment, rejected the company's claims of adverse possession and procedural defects, and ordered payment of deposited compensation to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Court of Ahmednagar dismissed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.'s appeal and upheld the trial court's decree requiring the company to deliver possession of 13.50 R (units of land measurement) that it encroached upon from three agricultural landowners. The court found credible evidence through cadastral surveyor measurements from both parties confirming the encroachment, rejected the company's claims of adverse possession and procedural defects, and ordered payment of deposited compensation to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts