Disposed¶9

Kanakia Paris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Also Know as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Bmc)

Bombay HC10 Jul 2025WP/1151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court common listing/order dated 09-12-2025 (Ghughe & Bhobe, JJ.): matters unheard at 5:55 p.m. rising for paucity of time; office objections to be removed within two weeks; earlier ad-interim/interim orders continue subject to compliance; spare copies within 14 days or dismissal against unserved respondents on 15th day; listing calendar 15-12-2025 to 04-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim/interim orders, if any granted earlier, to continue subject to compliance; fresh listing dates assigned per the chart; conditional dismissal against unserved respondents where spare copies are not supplied within 14 days. ¶9

Kanakia Paris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Also Know as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Bmc) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The matters set out in the chart could not be taken up for hearing at the time of rising (5:55 p.m.) owing to paucity of time, and were accordingly carried forward for listing on the dates assigned in the chart.

¶7

Key takeaways

Ad-interim/interim orders, if any granted earlier, shall continue, subject to compliance with the preceding directions (including removal of office objections within two weeks).ratio¶9
Affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, shall be filed at least one week before the next date of listing.ratio¶10
Where notices remained unprocessed for want of spare copies, the petitioner must supply spare copies for issuance of notice within 14 days, failing which the matters in which copies are not supplied would stand dismissed against the unserved respondents on the 15th day.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction / Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ. — Common Order dated 09-12-2025. Matters that could not be reached at the time of rising (5:55 p.m.) due to paucity of time were directed to be listed per a chart assigning dates from 15-12-2025 (Sr. No.03, For Compliance) to 04-02-2026 (Sr. No.226, For Final Hearing) under categories including Prioritised Matters, First on Board, For Passing Order, For Disposal, For Dismissal, Part-Heard, Fresh Admission, Admission, Urgent Admission, Urgent Order, Due Admission and Final Hearing. Directions: all office objections to be removed within two weeks; earlier ad-interim/interim orders to continue subject to such compliance; affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, to be filed at least one week before the next date; matters awaiting service of notice to be listed after service; where notices were unprocessed for want of spare copies, petitioners to supply copies within 14 days, failing which the matters would stand dismissed against the unserved respondents on the 15th day, and if copies are supplied, notice to issue returnable after four weeks.

¶1

Common Order - 09-12-2025.odt

¶2

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAURI GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2025.12.10 11:39:38 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION/ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶5

DATE : 9^th DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

P.C. :-

¶7

At the time of rising at 5:55 p.m., the matters mentioned in the chart in paragraph No.7 hereunder, could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time.

¶8

In several of these matters, there are office objections. As such, all office objections shall be removed within two weeks.

¶9

Subject to compliance of the above, ad-interim/interim order, if any granted earlier, would continue.

¶10

The affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, shall also be filed at least one week before the next date.

¶11

Matters in which service of notice is awaited, put up after service.

¶12

Matters in which though notices were issued, the office could not process the notice due to non-supply of spare copies, the Petitioner shall supply spare copies for issuance of notice within 14 days, failing which, the matters in which copies are not supplied, would stand dismissed as against the unserved Respondents on the 15^th day. If copies are supplied, office to issue notice to the unserved Respondents, returnable after four weeks.

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

Gauri Gaekwad

¶15

Common Order - 09-12-2025.odt

¶16

7. Subject to the above, list these matters as under :-

¶17

Serial Nos. of matters on the Board	To be listed on	To be listed in the category
03	15/12/2025	For Compliance
04 to 10	16/12/2025	Priortised Matters
11 and 12	05/01/2026	First on Board
13	05/01/2026	For Passing Order
14 to 24 (except Sr. No.23)	12/01/2026	For Disposal
26	12/01/2026	For Dismissal
28	12/01/2026	Part-Heard
29 to 49	27/01/2026	For Fresh Admission
50 to 70	28/01/2026	For Fresh Admission
71 to 88	29/01/2026	For Fresh Admission
90 to 109	30/01/2026	For Fresh Admission
110	30/01/2026	For Admission
111 to 125	30/01/2026	For Urgent Admission
127	02/02/2026	For Urgent Admission
129 to 134	02/02/2026	For Urgent Admission
135 to 143	02/02/2026	For Urgent Order
145 to 146	02/02/2026	For Urgent Order
147 to 200	03/02/2026	For Due Admission
201 to 213	04/02/2026	For Due Admission
215 and 216	04/02/2026	For Due Admission
218 to 225	04/02/2026	For Due Admission
226	04/02/2026	For Final Hearing

¶18

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶19

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

Gauri Gaekwad

Kanakia Paris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Also Know as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Bmc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanakia Paris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Also Know as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Bmc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kiran Rambhau Suryawanshi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs Bank of India

Apeksha Hemashree Ajit Pawar vs the Education Officer Thane Mced and Ors.

Manoj Lokhande vs Dean and Director (Me and Mh) and 5 Ors.

Gaurav Anil Kaushik vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader

Krishna Ganpati Kesarkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Skill Dev and Enter. Dept and Ors.