Sou.Shantashri Ajit Nadkarni etc.2 P.O.A. Shri Shubh Govind Mundale vs Shri.Gurunath Martoji Tari etc.2 Advocate - Satardekar Manish Waman1. — 46/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSI050002182017
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
103/2017
Filing Date
25-07-2017
Registration No
46/2017
Registration Date
25-07-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Vengurla
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Vengurla
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sou.Shantashri Ajit Nadkarni etc.2 P.O.A. Shri Shubh Govind Mundale
Adv. Prabhu Bharat Narahari
Vibha Atmaram Naik Govekar Power of attorney Shubh Govind Mundale
Respondent(s)
Shri.Gurunath Martoji Tari etc.2 Advocate - Satardekar Manish Waman1.
Janhavi Jayesh Tandel
Prajapita Brahamkumari Eishrij Vidyalay Through Vandana Ramchandra Kaskar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Vengurla
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 22-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 11-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 28-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 08-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Criminal Writ Petition No. 46/2017 (CNR: MHSI05-000218-2017) Outcome: The court allowed the petition and granted the following relief: (1) Defendant No. 1's petition is accepted, and (2) the order passed against Defendant No. 1 is set aside/quashed. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had not filed an affidavit/response to the charges, and therefore the proceedings against him should be vacated as they would result in injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Criminal Writ Petition No. 46/2017 (CNR: MHSI05-000218-2017) Outcome: The court allowed the petition and granted the following relief: (1) Defendant No. 1's petition is accepted, and (2) the order passed against Defendant No. 1 is set aside/quashed. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had not filed an affidavit/response to the charges, and therefore the proceedings against him should be vacated as they would result in injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts