Gurukrupa Co- Op credit Society,Bhatkal-Rep., by its C.E.O Sri Pandu Narayan Naik vs Shruti Vasanthkumar, Major — 28/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Status: NBW To Accused. Next hearing: 27th June 2026.

NBW To Accused Next hearing 27-Jun-2026

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUK310000932025

Filing Number

28/2025

Filing Date

10-Jan-2025

Registration No

28/2025

Registration Date

10-Jan-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKALA

Judge

523-Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gurukrupa Co- Op credit Society,Bhatkal-Rep., by its C.E.O Sri Pandu Narayan Naik

    Adv. Ishwar Manjunath Naik

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shruti Vasanthkumar, Major

Case History

  1. 27-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Apr-2026

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  5. 19-Jan-2026

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  7. 28-Nov-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  8. 27-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: CC 28/2025 The court heard testimony on 27/11/2025 in a dispute between Gurukrupa Co-Op Credit Society and Shruti Vasanthkumar regarding a personal loan of 60 installments. The petitioner's representative testified that the respondent received Rs. 2,500 in shares and Rs. 5,000 as processing fee, obtained a guarantor, and later repaid the entire loan with supporting documentation including a check. The court found that the respondent had fully settled the loan amount and that discrepancies in check details existed but were explained. The court determined the respondent had no pending payment obligations and noted the petitioner filed a false case against the respondent, with cross-examination concluding. Case adjourned for further inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 27-Nov-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  10. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  11. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  12. 27-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  13. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  14. 11-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  15. 25-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  16. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  17. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  18. 12-May-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  19. 15-Apr-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  20. 26-Mar-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  21. 05-Mar-2025

    Summons

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  22. 17-Feb-2025

    Summons

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  23. 30-Jan-2025

    Summons

    Prl.civil Judge And JMFC Court Bhatkal

  24. 13-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 10-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 28/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 28/2025 The court heard testimony on 27/11/2025 in a dispute between Gurukrupa Co-Op Credit Society and Shruti Vasanthkumar regarding a personal loan of 60 installments. The petitioner's representative testified that the respondent received Rs. 2,500 in shares and Rs. 5,000 as processing fee, obtained a guarantor, and later repaid the entire loan with supporting documentation including a check. The court found that the respondent had fully settled the loan amount and that discrepancies in check details existed but were explained. The court determined the respondent had no pending payment obligations and noted the petitioner filed a false case against the respondent, with cross-examination concluding. Case adjourned for further inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case