AKASH SOOD(Not Applicable) vs M/S MAM RAJ RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL(Not Applicable) Advocate - Udit Shaurya Kaushik, ,Nitin Thakur,NEMO — CMPMO/514/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010533732025

Filing Number

CMPMO/45187/2025

Filing Date

28-Aug-2025

Registration No

CMPMO/514/2025

Registration Date

29-Aug-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AKASH SOOD(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Deepak Gupta

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S MAM RAJ RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL(Not Applicable) Advocate - Udit Shaurya Kaushik, ,Nitin Thakur,NEMO

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

  3. 20-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

    Case Summary: CMPMO 514/2025 The petitioner's counsel contended that an underlying criminal matter between the parties had been compromised, which could affect the present case. The respondent's counsel requested time to obtain fresh instructions before responding. The court adjourned the matter to the following week for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

  7. 25-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

  8. 31-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

  9. 10-Sep-2025

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  10. 30-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

  11. 30-Aug-2025

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  12. 28-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMPMO/514/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CMPMO 514/2025 The petitioner's counsel contended that an underlying criminal matter between the parties had been compromised, which could affect the present case. The respondent's counsel requested time to obtain fresh instructions before responding. The court adjourned the matter to the following week for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case