B A R D C Bank Ltd. Gokarna Branch vs Renuka Raghavendra Hanehalli, 35 yrs, No. 22, Hanehalli, Bankikodla Post, Kumta — 1416/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK710016582025
Next Hearing
24th March 2026
Filing Number
156/2025
Filing Date
12-03-2025
Registration No
1416/2025
Registration Date
09-05-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA
Judge
633-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,KUMTA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B A R D C Bank Ltd. Gokarna Branch
Adv. Nishant Maruti Nayak
Respondent(s)
Renuka Raghavendra Hanehalli, 35 yrs, No. 22, Hanehalli, Bankikodla Post, Kumta
Hearing History
Judge: 633-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,KUMTA
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No. 1416/2025 | Date: 06-03-2026 The court examined a civil dispute involving loan allegations against the accused. The court found discrepancies in the documents presented, including differences in signatures on exhibits NIP-2A and 6A, and noted that the accused did not write NIP-2. The court observed that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the claimed outstanding amount as of 03.01.2025, and no notices allegedly sent to the accused were presented. The court adjourned the case and granted time to the petitioner's counsel to produce evidence. The matter was posted for further hearing with examination of witnesses in open court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No. 1416/2025 | Date: 06-03-2026 The court examined a civil dispute involving loan allegations against the accused. The court found discrepancies in the documents presented, including differences in signatures on exhibits NIP-2A and 6A, and noted that the accused did not write NIP-2. The court observed that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the claimed outstanding amount as of 03.01.2025, and no notices allegedly sent to the accused were presented. The court adjourned the case and granted time to the petitioner's counsel to produce evidence. The matter was posted for further hearing with examination of witnesses in open court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts