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. Status: 3600-Fresh Matters. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
CNR: GJHC240373242026
Filing Number
CRA/15967/2026
Filing Date
11-May-2026
Registration No
CRA/311/2026
Registration Date
26-May-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
Last updated 09-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.YASIN YUSUFBHAI BERUGARWALA
Adv. MR RASESH H PARIKH(
-
2.,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(
-
3.,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(
-
4., ,MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHUPENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL THROUGH HIS POA HOLDER MR. MOHMMAD IRFAN MOHMMAD YASIN MACHISWALA Advocate - null(
Case History
-
15-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-Jun-2026
3600-Fresh Matters
Honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J.shelat
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav,honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J.shelatView PDF
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.
-
08-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRA/311/2026
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.
Explore other courts