The Branch Manager, Shree Gokulam Chit and Fiance Co Ltd. repr by its Manager Sri. Girish K. vs Sri. Ubaid C.M. — 578/2023
Case under Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act Section P/U/Section,138,Of,NI,Act. Status: EVIDENCE- Criminal. Next hearing: 14th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKD520011082023
Next Hearing
14th March 2026
Filing Number
578/2023
Filing Date
13-07-2023
Registration No
578/2023
Registration Date
13-07-2023
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, VIRAJPET
Judge
369-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIRAJPET
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Branch Manager, Shree Gokulam Chit and Fiance Co Ltd. repr by its Manager Sri. Girish K.
Adv. Sri. K.N.Vishwanath
Respondent(s)
Sri. Ubaid C.M.
Hearing History
Judge: 369-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIRAJPET
EVIDENCE- Criminal
EVIDENCE- Criminal
EVIDENCE- Criminal
EVIDENCE- Criminal
EVIDENCE- Criminal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | EVIDENCE- Criminal |
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE- Criminal |
| 24-02-2026 | EVIDENCE- Criminal |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE- Criminal |
| 13-12-2025 | EVIDENCE- Criminal |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Civil Case No. 578/2023 heard on 24-02-2026 before the Principal Civil Judge at Virajpete, the court completed the examination of witness PW-2 and recorded their sworn testimony. The court admitted documentary evidence filed by the complainant (marked as Exhibits 1-6) and a notarized copy of an authorization letter (marked as Exhibit 7) after verification with the original. The case was adjourned, with the defendant's counsel requesting and being granted time for rebuttal arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Civil Case No. 578/2023 heard on 24-02-2026 before the Principal Civil Judge at Virajpete, the court completed the examination of witness PW-2 and recorded their sworn testimony. The court admitted documentary evidence filed by the complainant (marked as Exhibits 1-6) and a notarized copy of an authorization letter (marked as Exhibit 7) after verification with the original. The case was adjourned, with the defendant's counsel requesting and being granted time for rebuttal arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts