Prasad Shrikant Kamat vs Divya Pramod Gaonkar — 1934/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section U/s.138. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK020022682025
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
1934/2025
Filing Date
24-09-2024
Registration No
1934/2025
Registration Date
24-09-2024
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KARWAR
Judge
594-ADDL. SNR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KARWAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prasad Shrikant Kamat
Adv. M B HARIKANT
Respondent(s)
Divya Pramod Gaonkar
Hearing History
Judge: 594-ADDL. SNR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KARWAR
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-05-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 06-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case 1934/2025 Summary: The case between Prasad Shrikant Kamat (petitioner) and Divya Pramod Gaonkar (respondent) concerns a monetary dispute. The respondent claims she borrowed ₹8,00,000 from the petitioner on 10-09-2022 and provided two cheques as security, subsequently repaying the amount through cheques and RTGS transfers (₹1,00,000 on 09-03-2023, ₹1,00,000 on 19-05-2023, and ₹6,80,000 on 19-06-2023). The respondent contends all money has been repaid and requests dismissal of the case. The court adjourned the matter to allow the petitioner's counsel time to file a counter-reply, with witness testimony to be recorded according to applicable procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 1934/2025 Summary: The case between Prasad Shrikant Kamat (petitioner) and Divya Pramod Gaonkar (respondent) concerns a monetary dispute. The respondent claims she borrowed ₹8,00,000 from the petitioner on 10-09-2022 and provided two cheques as security, subsequently repaying the amount through cheques and RTGS transfers (₹1,00,000 on 09-03-2023, ₹1,00,000 on 19-05-2023, and ₹6,80,000 on 19-06-2023). The respondent contends all money has been repaid and requests dismissal of the case. The court adjourned the matter to allow the petitioner's counsel time to file a counter-reply, with witness testimony to be recorded according to applicable procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts