Hillcrest Hotel And Resorts Pvt Ltd Through Director Ashish Gadgil vs Jumpking International Llp — 3/2025
Case under Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 201 Section 2(C)(i)(Xiii). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
Commercial Suit
CNR: MHRG170009232025
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
09-05-2025
Filing Number
283/2025
Filing Date
02-05-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
09-05-2025
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)
Hillcrest Hotel And Resorts Pvt Ltd Through Director Ashish Gadgil
Adv. GANATRA HEMAL VIJAYKUMAR
Respondent(s)
Jumpking International Llp
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad
Hearing
Hearing
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 21-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 18-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Hillcrest Hotel and Resorts Pvt Ltd v. Jumpking International Llp (Commercial Suit No. 3/2025) Outcome: The court rejected both applications filed by the defendants. The defendants' applications seeking to set aside the previous rejection order and requesting condonation of delay to file a written statement were dismissed. The court found that the defendants failed to properly support their applications with required affidavits and their grounds were inadequate, with the court viewing their conduct as dilatory tactics aimed at prolonging the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Hillcrest Hotel and Resorts Pvt Ltd v. Jumpking International Llp (Commercial Suit No. 3/2025) Outcome: The court rejected both applications filed by the defendants. The defendants' applications seeking to set aside the previous rejection order and requesting condonation of delay to file a written statement were dismissed. The court found that the defendants failed to properly support their applications with required affidavits and their grounds were inadequate, with the court viewing their conduct as dilatory tactics aimed at prolonging the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts