KALPANAMATI GRIHA RACHNA SANSTHA MARYADT vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF HOME THROUGH SECRETARY — C.A. No. 3908/2012

Case under 31P-land Laws, Agricultural Tenancy, Land Revenue Section III. Status: PENDING.

CNR: SCIN010119752006

PENDING

Filing Date

04-May-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 3908/2012

Diary Number

11975/2006

Order Date

21-Jul-2025

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Data as of 27-Jun-2026

Advertisement

Acts & Sections

31P-Land Laws, Agricultural tenancy, Land Revenue Section III

Petitioner(s)

KALPANAMATI GRIHA RACHNA SANSTHA MARYADT

Adv. RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE[P-1]

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF HOME THROUGH SECRETARY

Adv. A. S. BHASME (Dead / Retired / Elevated) AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-2] AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-1] BHARTI TYAGI[R-7] LEX REGIS LAW OFFICES[R-14] LEX REGIS LAW OFFICES[R-13] LEX REGIS LAW OFFICES[R-12] J S WAD AND CO[R-1] ASHA GOPALAN NAIR[R-1] NARESH BAKSHI[R-1] AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-6]

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

21-Jul-2025

Administrative Order

22-May-2025

IA

07-Apr-2025

Ordinary

18-Dec-2024

Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

16-Dec-2024

Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

Orders

02-May-2017 ROP
02-May-2017 ROP
09-Jul-2010 ROP
05-Apr-2010 ROP
03-Feb-2010 ROP
22-Jan-2010 ROP
11-Jan-2010 ROP
01-Dec-2009 ROP
06-Oct-2009 ROP
06-Aug-2009 ROP
06-Jul-2009 ROP
11-May-2009 ROP
22-Apr-2009 ROP
22-Apr-2009 ROP
24-Mar-2009 ROP
19-Feb-2009 ROP
15-Jan-2009 ROP
15-Dec-2008 ROP
19-Sep-2008 ROP
18-Aug-2008 ROP
11-Jul-2008 ROP
11-Apr-2008 ROP
14-Feb-2008 ROP
07-Aug-2006 ROP
24-Jul-2006 ROP
View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

On 21-07-2025, the Supreme Court Registrar heard C.A. No. 3911/2012 (related to C.A. No. 3908/2012) concerning party modifications via I.A. 94243/2025. The Court deleted Respondent no.1 from the parties, noted that multiple respondents were served but failed to appear, confirmed that Respondents nos. 13, 16-19, and 21 were duly represented, and directed the Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Supreme Court of India All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case