Charu Kishor Mehta vs New Usha Kiran CHSL — 1/2026

Case under The Maharashtra Co Operative Socites Act 1961 Section 149. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

Revision - Revision Application

CNR: MHCA010000062026

e-Filing Number

28-01-2026

Filing Number

6/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

1/2026

Registration Date

31-Jan-2026

Court

Co-operative Appellate Court Mumbai

Judge

3-Member 2

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 02-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

The Maharashtra Co Operative Socites Act 1961 Section 149

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Charu Kishor Mehta

    Adv. VAIBHAVI PARCHAKE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.New Usha Kiran CHSL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Charu Kishor Mehta v. New Usha Kiran CHSL (1/2026) The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court rejected Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta's revision application challenging the trial court's decision to allow Acrynova Industries Private Limited to intervene in her dispute. The court held that Acrynova is a necessary party since the dispute directly challenges the August 2023 resolution admitting it as a member and its name entry in the share certificate—reliefs that would directly affect Acrynova's rights and interests in the flat purchased at e-auction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Member 2

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    Member 2

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Member 2

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Member 2

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Appearance

    Member 2

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Charu Kishor Mehta v. New Usha Kiran CHSL (1/2026) The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court rejected Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta's revision application challenging the trial court's decision to allow Acrynova Industries Private Limited to intervene in her dispute. The court held that Acrynova is a necessary party since the dispute directly challenges the August 2023 resolution admitting it as a member and its name entry in the share certificate—reliefs that would directly affect Acrynova's rights and interests in the flat purchased at e-auction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case