Nikita Vicky Salve vs Nil — 11/2026
Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 3,7. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th March 2026.
Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application
CNR: MHJN060001022026
e-Filing Number
12-01-2026
Filing Number
21/2026
Filing Date
13-Jan-2026
Registration No
11/2026
Registration Date
13-Jan-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Nikita Vicky Salve
Adv. SAPKAL RAJENDRA KADUBA
-
2.Chhaya Raju Salve
Adv. SAPKAL RAJENDRA KADUBA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Nil
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Order on Exhibit
Case Summary: Civil MA No. 11/2026 The court granted a Heirship Certificate to Nikita Vicky Salve and Chhaya Raju Salve, recognizing them as the legal heirs of deceased Vicky Raju Salve (died 26.08.2025). The court found the applicants' unchallenged testimony and supporting documents (death certificate, Aadhar cards) sufficient under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, and no objections were raised despite public proclamation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
-
16-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
-
11-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
-
09-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
-
17-Feb-2026
Public Notice/Proclamation
C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..
-
13-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 11/2026
Case Summary: Civil MA No. 11/2026 The court granted a Heirship Certificate to Nikita Vicky Salve and Chhaya Raju Salve, recognizing them as the legal heirs of deceased Vicky Raju Salve (died 26.08.2025). The court found the applicants' unchallenged testimony and supporting documents (death certificate, Aadhar cards) sufficient under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, and no objections were raised despite public proclamation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts