Satish Ramdayal Mantri vs Central Railway, Pune Division etc Advocate - Salunkhe Mangala Ganpatrao — 12/2022
Case under Public Premises (eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act Section 9. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Civil Appeal PPE - Civil Appeal under Public Premises Act
CNR: MHPU010091492022
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4767/2022
Filing Date
19-05-2022
Registration No
12/2022
Registration Date
19-05-2022
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
17-DISTRICT JUDGE - 1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Satish Ramdayal Mantri
Adv. GHADYALE SUDHINDRA MANIK
Respondent(s)
Central Railway, Pune Division etc Advocate - Salunkhe Mangala Ganpatrao
Estate Officer, Central Railway, Pune Division
Adv. Salunkhe Mangala Ganpatrao
Divisional Railway Manager, Works Division Office
Adv. Salunkhe Mangala Ganpatrao
Senior Section Engineer (W) GPR
Hearing History
Judge: 17-DISTRICT JUDGE - 1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 28-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 22-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-12-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The application for appointment of a court receiver was rejected. The appellant, as legal heir of the original allottee (deceased Mathurabai Ramdayal Mantri), sought to challenge an eviction order dated 10/11/2021 passed under the Public Premises Act, 1971, but the District Court found that the appellant was classified as an unauthorized occupant and therefore no court receiver could be appointed under Order XL of CPC in a Public Premises Act matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The application for appointment of a court receiver was rejected. The appellant, as legal heir of the original allottee (deceased Mathurabai Ramdayal Mantri), sought to challenge an eviction order dated 10/11/2021 passed under the Public Premises Act, 1971, but the District Court found that the appellant was classified as an unauthorized occupant and therefore no court receiver could be appointed under Order XL of CPC in a Public Premises Act matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts