Bhatkal Agricultural and Rural Development Co Operative Bank Ltd., Gokarna, Branch, Tq Kumta vs Sri Manjunath Jatti Hanehalli, Aged 39 Yrs., R/o. 202, Hanehalli, Bankikodla, Tq. Kumta — 35/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK710000952025
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
35/2025
Filing Date
07-01-2025
Registration No
35/2025
Registration Date
07-01-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA
Judge
633-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,KUMTA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhatkal Agricultural and Rural Development Co Operative Bank Ltd., Gokarna, Branch, Tq Kumta
Adv. Nishant Maruti Nayak
Respondent(s)
Sri Manjunath Jatti Hanehalli, Aged 39 Yrs., R/o. 202, Hanehalli, Bankikodla, Tq. Kumta
Hearing History
Judge: 633-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,KUMTA
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 29-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 06-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 25-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 35/2025 Case: Bhatkal Agricultural and Rural Development Co Operative Bank Ltd. v. Sri Manjunath Jatti Hanehalli Outcome: The case was adjourned for further examination. The court recorded witness testimony on 02-02-2026 and directed continuation of proceedings. Key findings included that the respondent's address could not be properly verified, the bank identified issues with loan documentation and potential fraudulent checks, and the court found discrepancies in the evidence presented regarding the loan account and personal surety details. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 35/2025 Case: Bhatkal Agricultural and Rural Development Co Operative Bank Ltd. v. Sri Manjunath Jatti Hanehalli Outcome: The case was adjourned for further examination. The court recorded witness testimony on 02-02-2026 and directed continuation of proceedings. Key findings included that the respondent's address could not be properly verified, the bank identified issues with loan documentation and potential fraudulent checks, and the court found discrepancies in the evidence presented regarding the loan account and personal surety details. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts