SAVIO FREITAS (IP NO. 2012001966) XVII-A [P-1] Versus CEO LILAVATI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER AND ANR. [R-1], MAIBAM (C.A. 5616/2023)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 5616/2023

Case Record

C.A. 5616/2023

SAVIO FREITAS (IP NO. 2012001966) XVII-A [P-1] Versus CEO LILAVATI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER AND ANR. [R-1], MAIBAM

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

C.A.Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay Taxation

10 PDF renditions· 10 distinct judicial orders· 10 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

SAVIO FREITAS (IP NO. 2012001966) Versus CEO LILAVATI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER & ANR.. C.A. 5616/2023 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010273462023. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 10 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 29 August 2023 to 12 January 2026.

On 29 August 2023 the order records: Delay in refiling is condoned. At the outset the appellant who has appeared in-person submitted that he would like to appear in-person in this appeal and therefore, seeks discharge of his advocate.
On 10 October 2023 the order records: As per the Office Report, service of notice on the respondents is incomplete. The appellant who is appearing in-person to take fresh steps to serve the respondents.
On 19 July 2024 the order records: Adjourned. List the matter on 04.10.2024.
On 12 January 2026 the order records: The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

29 August 2023. Delay in refiling is condoned. At the outset the appellant who has appeared in-person submitted that he would like to appear in-person in this appeal and therefore, seeks discharge of his advocate.
10 October 2023. As per the Office Report, service of notice on the respondents is incomplete. The appellant who is appearing in-person to take fresh steps to serve the respondents.
19 July 2024. Adjourned. List the matter on 04.10.2024.
4 October 2024. List on 07.02.2025.
7 February 2025. List on 02.04.2025.
2 April 2025. List on 05.05.2025.
5 May 2025. List on 01.09.2025.
1 September 2025. List on 22.09.2025.
22 September 2025. List on 12.01.2026.
12 January 2026. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Dr. Sushil Balwada Advocates — Respondents: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Mr. Sureshan P., Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Mr. Shakti, Mr. Jay Rawat, Mr. G.N. Shenoy, Mr. Krishnakanta

Relief Sought & Granted

On 12 January 2026 the order records: The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Subjects

Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay Taxation

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 12 Jan 2026

Latest development

Latest recorded event 12 Jan 2026

Final disposition

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Important procedural note

Written only from 10 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added.