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

EVIDENCE

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

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE

05-02-2026

EVIDENCE

23-01-2026

EVIDENCE

26-12-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

12-03-2025
Orders
26-02-2026
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case