St. Milagres Credit Sourdha Co-Operative Ltd. Karwar Branch Siddapur vs JAFAR SADHIK ABDUL RAHIM SAB R/O HARSIKATTA SIDDAPUR — 130/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: SETTELMENT. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK910003092025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
21-04-2025
Filing Number
53/2025
Filing Date
22-04-2025
Registration No
130/2025
Registration Date
22-04-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR
Judge
531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
St. Milagres Credit Sourdha Co-Operative Ltd. Karwar Branch Siddapur
Adv. HEGDE MANJUNATHA G
Respondent(s)
JAFAR SADHIK ABDUL RAHIM SAB R/O HARSIKATTA SIDDAPUR
Hearing History
Judge: 531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
SETTELMENT
SETTELMENT
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | SETTELMENT |
| 24-04-2026 | SETTELMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: C.C. No. 130/2025 In this cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused Jafar Sadhik Abdul Rahim filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C/Section 94 BNSS requesting the court to call for four documents: loan application, loan sanction details, loan agreement, and account statement. The court allowed the application, finding the documents necessary for the accused's defense and holding that providing them would ensure a fair trial without causing hardship to the complainant society. The court directed the complainant society's counsel to produce all four requested documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 130/2025 In this cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused Jafar Sadhik Abdul Rahim filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C/Section 94 BNSS requesting the court to call for four documents: loan application, loan sanction details, loan agreement, and account statement. The court allowed the application, finding the documents necessary for the accused's defense and holding that providing them would ensure a fair trial without causing hardship to the complainant society. The court directed the complainant society's counsel to produce all four requested documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts