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
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
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
Evidence
Evidence
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts