Allowed¶17

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another v. the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026MCA/96/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2026 and CAO No. 121 of 2026 in W.P. No. 7033 of 2019 (D), Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, decided 10 February 2026, coram Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, JJ. Rakesh Kutemate v. Ministry of Defence. Deletion of pro-forma respondent Nos. 12 and 18 from restoration application; office objections; conditional restoration of writ petition; civil application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application (CAO) No. 121 of 2026 allowed and disposed of; petitioners permitted to delete respondent Nos. 12 and 18 from the array of respondents in MCA No. 96 of 2026 at their own risk; correction to be carried out within one week, failing compliance with which the writ petition would not stand restored. ¶17

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another vs the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

127.MCA.96.2026.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2026 AND CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.121 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2019 (D) Rakesh S/o. Anandrao Kutemate and another

¶5

.Vs.

¶6

The Ministry of Defence, Union of India and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶8

and Registrar's Orders.

¶9

Mr S. D. Chande, Advocate for the petitioners Mr Ibrahim Fidvi, Adv. h/f. Mr A. M. Sudame, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 4, 5, 8, 9,11,15 to 17, 21,22

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. th DATED : 10 FEBRUARY , 2026 .

¶11

The present Miscellaneous Civil Application was allowed with a condition that the petitioners shall remove the office objections within a period of one week from the date of the order.

¶12

The office note shows that though other objections were removed, however, the office objection pertaining to the addition of respondent Nos. 12 and 18 in restoration application, who were not party in Writ Petition No. 7033 of 2019 is still subsisting.

¶13

Since the aforesaid objection was not removed, the writ petition is not yet restored.

¶14

2 127.MCA.96.2026.odt

¶15

Mr S.D.Chande, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the Civil Application No. 121 of 2026 paying for permission to delete the names of respondent Nos. 12 and 18 from the array of the respondents in MCA No. 96 of 2026.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application we allow the Civil Application (CAO) No. 121 of 2026 and permit the present petitioners to remove the name of respondent Nos. 12 and 18 from the array of respondents, at the risk of the present petitioners.

¶17

Accordingly, the Civil Application No. 121 of 2026 stands disposed of .

¶18

The necessary correction be carried out within one week. If such corrections are carried out within the stipulated period and remaining office objections, if any, are removed by the petitioners, Writ Petition No. 7033 of 2019 shall stand restored to its file.

¶19

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶20

Namrata

¶21

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/02/2026 10:23:42

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another v. the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another v. the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Asif Traders Thr. Prop. Shri. Asif Hanif Khan vs Shri. Vikas Kharage, Addl. Chief Secy., State of Maha., Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Namdeo S/O Anandrao Gadling vs Shri. Vikas Kharge, Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai

Shri. Ishwar Bawane S/O Lahanu Bawane vs the State of Maah. Thr. Secy. Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Prashant Shrawanji Barai vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati and Others

M/S Visual Instinct India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Director, Sandeep Dinkar Jat and Another vs Indian Overseas Bank, Nagpur Main Branch, Thr. Authorized Officer and Ors.

Abhijeet Sudhakarrao Bhalerao vs the Chairman Railway Board Rail Bhavan 1, New Delhi and Others