Dadasaheb Pralhad Kate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Not a merits judgment: batch adjournment ('paucity of time') order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dated 21.03.2025, coram Mangesh S. Patil & Y. G. Khobragade, JJ. Reschedules a long list of matters (writ petitions, civil applications, PILs, review applications, commercial appeal COMAP/2/2023, ITA/ITAST applications; schedule numbered up to 147) mostly across 09.06.2025–23.07.2025, with one cluster on 23.04.2025; numerous July dates flagged 'urgent category'. Key operational point for practitioners: interim relief/undertakings/statements continue till the next date, except exemption-from-appearance-before-trial-Court orders. No parties, advocates, statutes or cited precedents appear in the text; the schedule tables contain OCR noise (garbled cells such as 'cateor' and 'gy', blank date cells, absent item numbers 65 and 128).
What did the court decide?
No substantive relief adjudicated. Administrative adjournment: all scheduled matters (writ petitions, civil applications, PILs, review applications, a commercial appeal and ITA/ITAST applications, schedule numbered up to 147) adjourned to specified dates ranging from 23.04.2025 to 23.07.2025, many July sittings marked 'urgent category'; interim relief/undertaking/statement to continue till next date except exemption-from-appearance orders.