M/s Cypher Alloys Private Limited vs M/S Ghodawat Industries (India) Pravite Limited — 43/2025

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHKO070021752025

Evidence

Next Hearing

25th June 2026

e-Filing Number

10-09-2025

Filing Number

832/2025

Filing Date

11-09-2025

Registration No

43/2025

Registration Date

11-09-2025

Court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur

Judge

19-Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Jaysingpur

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

M/s Cypher Alloys Private Limited

Adv. VAIDYA CHINMAY MADHUKAR

Respondent(s)

M/S Ghodawat Industries (India) Pravite Limited

Hearing History

Judge: 19-Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Jaysingpur

09-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

05-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

26-02-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

12-02-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

10-03-2026
Order on T.I.

Summary: The court rejected Cypher Alloys Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking a temporary injunction to stay execution of a 2014 decree for Rs. 4,83,663. Although the court found prima facie that the original summons was not properly served at the company's registered office in Pune (violating the Companies Act), it denied the injunction because the applicant failed to approach the court with clean hands—it suppressed the material fact that an identical stay application had already been rejected by the executing court on the same day. The court held that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected Cypher Alloys Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking a temporary injunction to stay execution of a 2014 decree for Rs. 4,83,663. Although the court found prima facie that the original summons was not properly served at the company's registered office in Pune (violating the Companies Act), it denied the injunction because the applicant failed to approach the court with clean hands—it suppressed the material fact that an identical stay application had already been rejected by the executing court on the same day. The court held that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case