ASHISH CHEMBURKAR . vs U.P. COOP. SPINNING MILLS FED. LTD. — C.A. No. 7679/2009

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010067232004

Filing Date

24-Mar-2004

Registration No

C.A. No. 7679/2009

Diary Number

6723/2004

Order Date

20-Nov-2009

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHISH CHEMBURKAR .

    Adv. M. V. KINI & ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.U.P. COOP. SPINNING MILLS FED. LTD.

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD ANUVRAT SHARMA RAKESH UTTAMCHANDRA UPADHYAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 23-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 01-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 01-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 25-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 18-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 24-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 23-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 31-Jan-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 29-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 25-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 15-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 31-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 30-Jan-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 12-Sep-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 22-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 25-Jul-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 11-Jul-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 29-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 28-Feb-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 13-Jan-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 20-Aug-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 24-Mar-2004

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 7679/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Civil Appeal No. 7679/2009 On November 20, 2009, the Supreme Court heard four consolidated appeals arising from the High Court of Bombay's September 4, 2003 order. The High Court had rejected prayer clause (a) of the writ petitions without assigning reasons, while directing Rule on clauses (b) and (c). The Supreme Court found this procedurally flawed, holding that prayer clauses (a) and (b) were interrelated and the High Court should not have rejected clause (a) at the threshold stage. The Court set aside the rejection of prayer clause (a) and remitted the matter to the High Court to hear the writ petitions on merits and consider both prayers. The Court requested expeditious disposal within six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case