Allowed¶25

Union of India and Ors. v. Samir Vinod Yadav

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026IA/3722/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court interim application allowed; restoration of writ petition dismissed for default (pre-notice stage, office objections); 33-day delay condoned as neither deliberate nor inordinate; Union of India & Anr. v. Samir Vinod Yadav; relies on Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee, (2013) 12 SCC 649; office objections deadline 25.06.2026; restoration at pre-dismissal stage; listing 02.07.2026; Coram: Ghuge ACJ & Ankhad J; order dated 11.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed: all office objections to be removed on or before 25.06.2026; upon such removal, Writ Petition (St.) No. 35259 of 2025 to stand restored at the stage at which it was dismissed; petition to be listed in the urgent supplementary board on 02.07.2026. ¶25

Union of India and Ors. vs Samir Vinod Yadav — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the 33-day delay in filing Interim Application No. 3722 of 2026, seeking restoration of Writ Petition (St.) No. 35259 of 2025 (dismissed for default for non-removal of office objections), should be excused so as to allow restoration of the petition.

¶24

Court's answer

The delay of 33 days in filing the restoration Application, as calculated by the Registry, is neither deliberate nor inordinate.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and Esha Bhattacharjee ((2013) 12 SCC 649), the Interim Application is allowed with directions.

¶25

Key takeaways

Directions issued: all office objections shall be removed on or before 25.06.2026, and after their removal the Writ Petition would stand restored at the stage at which it was dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ. & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; order dated 11 June 2026) allowed Interim Application No. 3722 of 2026 in Writ Petition (St.) No. 35259 of 2025, moved by Union of India & Anr. (original Petitioners) for restoration of the petition, which had been dismissed for default at the pre-notice stage for non-removal of office objections. Holding that the Registry-calculated delay of 33 days was neither deliberate nor inordinate, and relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and Esha Bhattacharjee ((2013) 12 SCC 649), the Court directed removal of all office objections by 25.06.2026, restoration of the petition at the stage of dismissal, and listing in the urgent supplementary board on 02.07.2026. The Respondent (Samir Vinod Yadav) had opposed restoration on the ground that the delay was unexplained.

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed byTRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2026.06.12 15:45:14 +0530

911-ia-3722-2026.odt

Trupti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3722 OF 2026 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 35259 OF 2025

¶8

Union of India & Anr. … Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Union of India & Anr. … Petitioners versus Samir Vinod Yadav … Respondent

¶9

Ms.Samiksha R.Kanani for the Applicants.

¶10

Mr.Samir Singh for the Respondent (through VC).

¶11

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶12

DATE : 11 JUNE, 2026

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. The Applicants are the original Petitioners. The Petition has

¶15

been dismissed for default since the office objections were not removed.

¶16

The Interim Application has been amended with the leave of

¶17

the Court. A delay of 33 days is caused in filing the present Application.

¶18

The Petition was dismissed for default at the pre-notice stage. The

¶19

delay of 33 days, as calculated by the Registry, is neither deliberate nor inordinate.

911-ia-3722-2026.odt

Trupti

The learned Advocate for the Original Appellant, the

¶24

Respondent herein, vehemently opposes the Application for restoration, contending that the delay of 33 days has not been properly explained.

¶25

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Interim Application is allowed with the following directions :

¶26

(a) All office objections shall be removed, on or before 25.06.2026;

¶27

(b) After all office objections are removed, the Writ

¶28

Petition would stand restored at the stage at which it was dismissed.

¶29

After compliance of the above directions, list this Petition,

¶30

in the urgent supplementary board, on 02.07.2026.

¶31

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

Union of India and Ors. v. Samir Vinod Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Samir Vinod Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Biyani vs State Bank of India

Ashni Biyani vs State Bank of India

M/S. Horizon Developers Thru. Partners vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gulshan Arif Tase vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Priti Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Horizon Developers Thru. Partners vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.