Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Dhatrak vs Archana Gopal Varade Advocate - Sonawane A.K. — 173/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHNS280011532024
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
e-Filing Number
23-10-2024
Filing Number
1121/2024
Filing Date
11-11-2024
Registration No
173/2024
Registration Date
11-11-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Dhatrak
Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR
Ganesh Shankarrao Dhatrak
Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR
Bharat Shankarrao Dhatrak
Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR
Manoj Shankarrao Dhatrak
Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR
Respondent(s)
Archana Gopal Varade Advocate - Sonawane A.K.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the suspension of the liquor license for Hotel Abhishek. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting an injunction. The court noted that the property was purchased in the deceased's name alone with no documentary evidence of joint family purchase, and the plaintiffs suppressed a court-issued heirship certificate naming the defendants as legal heirs, constituting lack of good faith in approaching the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the suspension of the liquor license for Hotel Abhishek. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting an injunction. The court noted that the property was purchased in the deceased's name alone with no documentary evidence of joint family purchase, and the plaintiffs suppressed a court-issued heirship certificate naming the defendants as legal heirs, constituting lack of good faith in approaching the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts