Disposed¶22

Kanan Knitwear and Ors. v. Manish Products and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/611/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC; WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 2026; Kanan Knitwear v. Manish Products; expeditious disposal of SCS No.129 of 2013; pendency of Writ Petition No.5258 of 2025 (arising from Civil Judge order dated 1 March 2025) held no bar to trial absent stay/ad-interim relief; compliance with AO No.1442 of 2013 one-year disposal directive; N.J. Jamadar, J.; disposed 20 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed with a clarification that, absent any stay of SCS No.129 of 2013, the trial Court shall not defer the hearing and shall hear and decide the suit in conformity with the order passed by this Court in AO No.1442 of 2013. ¶22

Kanan Knitwear and Ors. vs Manish Products and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:3052

¶2

41 wp 611 of 2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 2026

¶4

Kanan Knitwear and Ors.

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Manish Products and Ors.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Nilesh Gala, for Petitioners.

¶10

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶11

DATE : 20 JANUARY 2026

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶14

A limited grievance in the Petition is to have an expeditious hearing and disposal of SCS No.129 of 2013.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invites attention of the Court to an

¶16

order dated 13 February 2014 passed in AO No.1442 of 2013, whereby the learned Trial Court was directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of one year from the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioner is that, in the intervening period, against the order dated 1 March 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application preferred by the Defendants, Writ Petition No.5258 of 2025 has been preferred and the trial in the said suit is not being proceeded with on the ground of pendency of the said Writ Petition.

¶18

SSP 1/2

¶19

41 wp 611 of 2026.doc

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, according to his instructions, there is no ad-interim relief granted in the said Writ Petition. Attention of the Court is invited to the copies of the orders passed in the said Writ Petition (Exh.H colly).

¶21

Prima facie, it appears that there is no restraint to proceed with the suit. Thus, mere pendency of Writ Petition No.5258 of 2025 would not preclude the learned Civil Judge from proceeding with SCS No.129 of 2013.

¶22

The Writ Petition stands disposed, with a clarification that, in the absence of stay to the proceedings in SCS No.129 of 2013, the trial Court shall not defer the hearing in SCS No.129 of 2013, and, hear and decide the same in conformity with the order passed by this Court dated 13 February 2024 in AO No.1442 of 2013,

¶23

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶24

SSP 2/2

¶25

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/01/2026 20:41:45

Kanan Knitwear and Ors. v. Manish Products and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanan Knitwear and Ors. v. Manish Products and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Sebastian Joseph Sequeira and Anr. vs Dilip Mahasukhlal Shah and Ors.

Umesh Kantilal Parikh and Ors. vs Neo Builders and Developers Thr. Its Director and Ors.

Amruta Mahipati Salunke Since Deceased by His Rls. vs Dadasaheb Namdev Salunke Since Deceased by His Lrs

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. vs Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

M/S Harasiddh Developers vs Mohd Ayub Shaikh Ali Varekar Since Deceased Thr Lrs. Mrs Ahiyabi Mohd. Ayub Warekar and Ors.

Virendra Madhukarrao Deshpande vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Housing Dept. of and Ors.