Appayya S/o Shivalingayya Adahallamath vs Rajesh Bommayya Gunaga Advocate - Sri. Narayan .Ramakrishna NAYAK — 292/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,504,506. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK210006072020
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
292/2020
Filing Date
27-08-2020
Registration No
292/2020
Registration Date
27-08-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Judge
522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Appayya S/o Shivalingayya Adahallamath
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Rajesh Bommayya Gunaga Advocate - Sri. Narayan .Ramakrishna NAYAK
Hearing History
Judge: 522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 05-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 08-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Interim Orders
Summary The court examined witness testimony in Civil Case No. 292/2020 before the JMFC Court, Ankola on 01-08-2025. The witness (Siddeswara Hebballi, 51-year-old Chief Mechanical Engineer) testified regarding allegations that the accused (RP) abused and used inappropriate language toward supervisors on 30-07-2018 and 31-07-2018. The court found the witness's testimony unreliable—the witness lacked personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, there was no investigation into the complaint, and no duty registers or corroborating evidence supported the claims. The court concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated and rejected the witness account as fabricated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court examined witness testimony in Civil Case No. 292/2020 before the JMFC Court, Ankola on 01-08-2025. The witness (Siddeswara Hebballi, 51-year-old Chief Mechanical Engineer) testified regarding allegations that the accused (RP) abused and used inappropriate language toward supervisors on 30-07-2018 and 31-07-2018. The court found the witness's testimony unreliable—the witness lacked personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, there was no investigation into the complaint, and no duty registers or corroborating evidence supported the claims. The court concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated and rejected the witness account as fabricated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts