Rajesh Malhari Salunke vs Directorate Of Marketing Maharashtra State — 17/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section Section31,34and38. Status: Notice Ready. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHYA050031002025
e-Filing Number
18-07-2025
Filing Number
572/2025
Filing Date
19-Jul-2025
Registration No
17/2025
Registration Date
19-Jul-2025
Court
Civil Judge Senior Division Pusad
Judge
23-Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rajesh Malhari Salunke
Adv. Mahamune A.P, Wakde P.V.
-
2.Annasaheb Tukaram Thenge
Adv. Mahamune A.P
-
3.Iqbal Ahemadkha Meer Alamkha
Adv. Mahamune A.P
-
4.Sanjay Dattarao Londhe
Adv. Mahamune A.P
Respondent(s)
-
1.Directorate Of Marketing Maharashtra State
-
2.State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector Yavatmal
Adv. Nirmal M.k.
-
3.District Deputy Registrar Co Operative Societies Yavatmal
Adv. Nirmal M.k.
-
4.Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Pusad
Adv. Nirmal M.k.
-
5.Municipal Council PusadRepresented by Power of Attorney -Chief Officer
Adv. Ghatge M. J.
-
6.Vijay Bhopasing Chavhan Chairman kai Sheshrao Patil Ginning And Pressing Society
Adv. Pande V.V.
-
7.kai Sheshrao Patil Ginning And Pressing Soc Pusad through MD Sharad Sheshrao Patil
Adv. Deshmukh V.B.
-
8.R C Plasto Tank And Pipes Pvt. Ltd. through Nilesh Agrawal
Adv. Pande V.V.,A. A. KHAN
-
9.Kapish Financial Services through Amol Yerawar
Adv. Pande V.V.,A. A. KHAN
-
10.Dainik Bhaskar HIndi Through Its Editor
Case History
-
16-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-May-2026
Notice Ready
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad
-
28-Apr-2026
Notice Ready
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad
-
16-Apr-2026
Notice Ready
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad
-
04-Apr-2026
Notice Ready
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad
-
12-Mar-2026
Notice Ready
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
02-Mar-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
20-Feb-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
11-Feb-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
30-Jan-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
12-Jan-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
22-Dec-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
06-Dec-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
21-Nov-2025
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
03-Nov-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
04-Oct-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
20-Sep-2025
Order on T.I.View PDF
Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against Defendant No. 9, restraining him from developing the suit property and alienating plots. While the court found the plaintiffs established a prima-facie case regarding alleged violations in the property sale process (improper valuation and lack of e-tendering), it declined to grant the injunction because the Hon'ble High Court had already given liberty to Defendant No. 9 to create third-party interests with notification requirements regarding pending litigations. The court ordered costs in cause against the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
17-Sep-2025
Order
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
10-Sep-2025
Order
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
09-Sep-2025
Hearing
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
19-Aug-2025
Awaiting Summons
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
06-Aug-2025
Awaiting Notice
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad
-
21-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 17/2025
Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against Defendant No. 9, restraining him from developing the suit property and alienating plots. While the court found the plaintiffs established a prima-facie case regarding alleged violations in the property sale process (improper valuation and lack of e-tendering), it declined to grant the injunction because the Hon'ble High Court had already given liberty to Defendant No. 9 to create third-party interests with notification requirements regarding pending litigations. The court ordered costs in cause against the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts