Vanmala Prakash Jain (Khule) vs HBD Financial Services Ltd. — 13/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43,1R. Status: Paper Book. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal
CNR: MHJN010005482026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
258/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
13/2026
Registration Date
07-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vanmala Prakash Jain (Khule)
Adv. NIMBALKAR DAGDUBA SAMPATRAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.HBD Financial Services Ltd.
-
2.Anandkumar Amarchand Surana
-
3.Banwarilalji Tribhuvandasji Bagadiya (Agrwal)
Case History
-
14-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
11-Jun-2026
Paper Book
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
11-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: The court dismissed the appellant's application seeking status-quo regarding property CTS No.3544, finding that since both respondents had already filed their written statements, the preliminary relief was no longer necessary. The court ruled the main appeal can now proceed to hearing on merits, with costs awarded against the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-May-2026
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
08-May-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
07-May-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
30-Apr-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
21-Apr-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
04-Apr-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Order on Exh
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2026
Case Summary: The court dismissed the appellant's application seeking status-quo regarding property CTS No.3544, finding that since both respondents had already filed their written statements, the preliminary relief was no longer necessary. The court ruled the main appeal can now proceed to hearing on merits, with costs awarded against the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts