VILAS SHANKAR SHELAR vs PIRPASHA HUSAINI A.R.INAMDAR . — C.A. No. 10937/2013
Case under Section III. Status: 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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VILAS SHANKAR SHELAR
Adv. SESHATALPA SAI BANDARU[P-1] SESHATALPA SAI BANDARU[P-3]
Respondent(s)
-
1.PIRPASHA HUSAINI A.R.INAMDAR .
Adv. RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE[R-1] PRAGYA BAGHEL[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Mar-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Mar-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
13-Feb-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Feb-2023
IA
Registrar (Jud. Listing)
-
13-Feb-2023
IA
Registrar (Jud. Listing)
-
20-Jul-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
-
04-Jan-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jan-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Mar-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Dec-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Nov-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Oct-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Aug-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Jul-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Jun-2012
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 10937/2013
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