Gayabai Tanaji Katekar(Legal Heir) vs State Of Maharashtra Trough Collector Advocate - KALOO SHRIRAM NARAYANRAO — 600104/2013
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 18. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHWS020005552013
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Number
600692/2013
Filing Date
31-10-2013
Registration No
600104/2013
Registration Date
08-11-2013
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Washim
Judge
1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gayabai Tanaji Katekar(Legal Heir)
Adv. Mahale P.N.1.
Sau.Taibai Ghamrao Kakade(Legal Heir)
Adv. SANAP VINOD JANARDHAN1.
Mandabai Sanjay Muthad(Legal Heir)
Adv. SANAP VINOD JANARDHAN1.
Murlidhar Tanaji Katekar
Adv. SANAP VINOD JANARDHAN
Respondent(s)
State Of Maharashtra Trough Collector Advocate - KALOO SHRIRAM NARAYANRAO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Hearing
Steps
Order on Exh
Depositing Amount
Depositing Amount
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Hearing |
| 29-04-2026 | Steps |
| 18-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 15-04-2026 | Depositing Amount |
| 06-04-2026 | Depositing Amount |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 600104/2013 The Joint Civil Judge, Washim allowed Application Exh.39 filed by the defendant/heir (D.H.) Gayabai Tanaji Katekar, permitting her to produce material documents on record, including a xerox copy of judgment from LAC No.131/2009, account statement, and certified copy of final award. The court found these documents material and determined there would be no prejudice to the respondent (J.D.) if production was allowed, despite the belated filing. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 600104/2013 The Joint Civil Judge, Washim allowed Application Exh.39 filed by the defendant/heir (D.H.) Gayabai Tanaji Katekar, permitting her to produce material documents on record, including a xerox copy of judgment from LAC No.131/2009, account statement, and certified copy of final award. The court found these documents material and determined there would be no prejudice to the respondent (J.D.) if production was allowed, despite the belated filing. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts