Taterao Murlidhar Divate vs State of Maharashtra — 67/2026
Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 02nd April 2026.
Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU080002242026
e-Filing Number
20-01-2026
Filing Number
102/2026
Filing Date
21-Jan-2026
Registration No
67/2026
Registration Date
27-Jan-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Sillod
Judge
6-Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Taterao Murlidhar Divate
Adv. Mote K.S.
-
2.Pramila Murlidhar Divate
Adv. Mote K.S.
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
02-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court dismissed the petition filed by Taterao Murlidhar Divate and Pramila Murlidhar Divate against the State of Maharashtra. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish any violation of their statutory or constitutional rights, and that the state's action was justified under the applicable law and regulations. The petition lacked merit as the petitioners could not demonstrate any wrongful deprivation or breach of their legal entitlements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
30-Mar-2026
Arguments
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
28-Mar-2026
Arguments
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
25-Mar-2026
Arguments
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
24-Mar-2026
Arguments
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
23-Mar-2026
Arguments
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
12-Mar-2026
Public Notice/Proclamation
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
05-Mar-2026
Public Notice/Proclamation
Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod
-
28-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
28-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 67/2026
The court dismissed the petition filed by Taterao Murlidhar Divate and Pramila Murlidhar Divate against the State of Maharashtra. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish any violation of their statutory or constitutional rights, and that the state's action was justified under the applicable law and regulations. The petition lacked merit as the petitioners could not demonstrate any wrongful deprivation or breach of their legal entitlements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts