Bhargav Ramdas Thakur and 3 vs Dilip Ramdas Gharat Advocate - Bartake S. Y. — 3/2022
Case under Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 201 Section 6. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
Commercial Suit
CNR: MHRG170006082022
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
77/2022
Filing Date
30-03-2022
Registration No
3/2022
Registration Date
30-03-2022
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhargav Ramdas Thakur and 3
Adv. Nityanand Thakur
Gopinath Ramdas Thakur
Pritam Ramdas Thakur
M/s. B. R. Thakur
Respondent(s)
Dilip Ramdas Gharat Advocate - Bartake S. Y.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 05-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 22-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 04-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Commercial Suit 3/2022 The plaintiff sought return of documents filed by defendants with their written statement, arguing the defendants failed to seek court permission as required under Order XI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the court found that the defendants had produced documents with an earlier application (Exh.15) which the predecessor judge had already approved. The court rejected the plaintiff's application, holding that judicial propriety prevented reopening the legality of the predecessor's prior order allowing document production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Commercial Suit 3/2022 The plaintiff sought return of documents filed by defendants with their written statement, arguing the defendants failed to seek court permission as required under Order XI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the court found that the defendants had produced documents with an earlier application (Exh.15) which the predecessor judge had already approved. The court rejected the plaintiff's application, holding that judicial propriety prevented reopening the legality of the predecessor's prior order allowing document production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts