VILAS SHANKAR SHELAR vs PIRPASHA HUSAINI A.R.INAMDAR . — C.A. No. 10937/2013

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010200492012

Filing Date

20-Jun-2012

Registration No

C.A. No. 10937/2013

Diary Number

20049/2012

Order Date

15-Mar-2023

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 07-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VILAS SHANKAR SHELAR

    Adv. SESHATALPA SAI BANDARU[P-1] SESHATALPA SAI BANDARU[P-3]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PIRPASHA HUSAINI A.R.INAMDAR .

    Adv. RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE[R-1] PRAGYA BAGHEL[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Mar-2023

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 15-Mar-2023

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal

  4. 13-Feb-2023

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 13-Feb-2023

    IA

    Registrar (Jud. Listing)

  6. 13-Feb-2023

    IA

    Registrar (Jud. Listing)

  7. 20-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

  8. 04-Jan-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 04-Jan-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 24-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 24-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 27-Mar-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 09-Dec-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 22-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 21-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 06-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 05-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 02-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 13-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 20-Jun-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 10937/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: C.A. No. 10937/2013 - Vilas Shankar Shelar v. Pirpasha Husaini A.R. Inamdar The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's reversal of a trial court decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. The Court found that the appellants failed to clearly establish dispossession in their pleadings and evidence; instead, they merely maintained symbolic possession through stored materials. The suit prayers improperly sought injunctions beyond Section 6's scope, which requires actual recovery of possession following unlawful dispossession. The Court upheld the High Court's decision as legally correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case