YASIN YUSUFBHAI BERUGARWALA vs BHUPENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL THROUGH HIS POA HOLDER MR. MOHMMAD IRFAN MOHMMAD YASIN MACHISWALA Advocate - null( — CRA/311/2026

Case under Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Section 00. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

CNR: GJHC240373242026

Next Hearing

15th June 2026

Filing Number

CRA/15967/2026

Filing Date

11-05-2026

Registration No

CRA/311/2026

Registration Date

26-05-2026

Judge

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Coram

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Bench Type

SINGLE

Category

271-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 ( 271 )

Sub-Category

1222-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - UNDER SECTION 29(2) ( 1222 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Acts & Sections

Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Section 00

Petitioner(s)

YASIN YUSUFBHAI BERUGARWALA

Adv. MR RASESH H PARIKH(

,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(

,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(

, ,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(

Respondent(s)

BHUPENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL THROUGH HIS POA HOLDER MR. MOHMMAD IRFAN MOHMMAD YASIN MACHISWALA Advocate - null(

Hearing History

Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

08-06-2026

3600-FRESH MATTERS

15-06-2026

3600-FRESH MATTERS

Orders

08-06-2026
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Case Summary: CRA/311/2026 In this civil revision application before the Gujarat High Court, Justice Maulik J. Shelat adjourned the case to June 15, 2026, with the consent of all parties. The defendant's advocate informed the court that a caveat had been filed but was not reflected in the records due to a clerical issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA/311/2026 In this civil revision application before the Gujarat High Court, Justice Maulik J. Shelat adjourned the case to June 15, 2026, with the consent of all parties. The defendant's advocate informed the court that a caveat had been filed but was not reflected in the records due to a clerical issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case