V.R.PAVAN vs SYED ZAMEER PASHA — 47/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section U/S200OFCRPC. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 11th May 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAMS400001622024
Next Hearing
11th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
47/2024
Filing Date
21-02-2024
Registration No
47/2024
Registration Date
21-02-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA
Judge
922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
V.R.PAVAN
Adv. V.S. DIVYA
Respondent(s)
SYED ZAMEER PASHA
Hearing History
Judge: 922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 23-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 19-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Civil Case No. 47/2024, the court conducted witness examination on 19-02-2026. The plaintiff testified about lending ₹4,50,000 to the defendant in October 2022 with a one-year repayment agreement, secured by a cheque (P-1). The plaintiff alleged the defendant sold a two-wheeler to him without proper documentation and failed to repay the loan, causing the cheque to bounce. However, the court found the plaintiff's testimony contradictory and unreliable regarding the two-wheeler transaction, payment methods (Phone Pay mentioned), and the loan details. The court determined the plaintiff presented false evidence and rejected his claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Civil Case No. 47/2024, the court conducted witness examination on 19-02-2026. The plaintiff testified about lending ₹4,50,000 to the defendant in October 2022 with a one-year repayment agreement, secured by a cheque (P-1). The plaintiff alleged the defendant sold a two-wheeler to him without proper documentation and failed to repay the loan, causing the cheque to bounce. However, the court found the plaintiff's testimony contradictory and unreliable regarding the two-wheeler transaction, payment methods (Phone Pay mentioned), and the loan details. The court determined the plaintiff presented false evidence and rejected his claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts