Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar vs Collector, Kolhapur — 30/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,39. Status: Formal Hearing. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO090000982025
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
e-Filing Number
14-02-2025
Filing Number
102/2025
Filing Date
14-02-2025
Registration No
30/2025
Registration Date
14-02-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Gadhinglaj
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar
Adv. M. V. Patil
Respondent(s)
Collector, Kolhapur
2- District Mining Officer Kolhapur
3- Tashildar, Ajara
4- Suryakant Namdeo Narvekar
5- ISC Project Private Limited Pune through authorised reprensatative Dhananjay Dattatray Gavali
Adv. Rohan A. Patil
6- Mahesh Annaji Bhosale
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj
Formal Hearing
Formal Hearing
Formal Hearing
Formal Hearing
Formal Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Formal Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Formal Hearing |
| 07-02-2026 | Formal Hearing |
| 03-01-2026 | Formal Hearing |
| 16-12-2025 | Formal Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 30/2025 Outcome: Defendant No.5's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff (Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar) has sufficient cause of action and locus standi to challenge a property transaction, claiming the property is held benami in the defendant's name. The court held that whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applies requires detailed evidence and trial, not threshold determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 30/2025 Outcome: Defendant No.5's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff (Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar) has sufficient cause of action and locus standi to challenge a property transaction, claiming the property is held benami in the defendant's name. The court held that whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applies requires detailed evidence and trial, not threshold determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts