Mallikarjun S/o Marenna Age 25Yrs Occ Business R/o Near Ambiger choudayya Katti Naribol village vs Ramesh S/o Bhimanna Hugar Age 23Yrs Occ Pvt Work R/o Near Hanuman Temple Teachers Colony Jewargi — 156/2021
Case under Sec10 of Cpc Section U/Sec.138. Status: EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL. Next hearing: 12th May 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB610002432021
Next Hearing
12th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
156/2021
Filing Date
19-02-2021
Registration No
156/2021
Registration Date
19-02-2021
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEVARGI
Judge
829-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JEVARGI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mallikarjun S/o Marenna Age 25Yrs Occ Business R/o Near Ambiger choudayya Katti Naribol village
Adv. S S Dandoti
Respondent(s)
Ramesh S/o Bhimanna Hugar Age 23Yrs Occ Pvt Work R/o Near Hanuman Temple Teachers Colony Jewargi
Hearing History
Judge: 829-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JEVARGI
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
ORDERS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 22-01-2026 | HEARING | |
| 17-12-2025 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
This is a Kannada language court order from the High Court of Karnataka (Case S.S. No. 156/2021) dated 24-05-2024. The case involves a cheque bouncing matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court directed that all petitions be heard together and posed two specific questions for consideration: (1) whether all objections to the original petitions were read out correctly, and (2) whether those objections were accepted or require further argument. The case has been adjourned for further hearing with directions for consolidated consideration of all petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Kannada language court order from the High Court of Karnataka (Case S.S. No. 156/2021) dated 24-05-2024. The case involves a cheque bouncing matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court directed that all petitions be heard together and posed two specific questions for consideration: (1) whether all objections to the original petitions were read out correctly, and (2) whether those objections were accepted or require further argument. The case has been adjourned for further hearing with directions for consolidated consideration of all petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts