Shri. Brahmi Durgaparameshwari Sowharda Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Rep. by Rohit K vs S. Arun Kumar Shetty — 1296/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUP320032862023

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

15th April 2026

Filing Number

1296/2023

Filing Date

02-11-2023

Registration No

1296/2023

Registration Date

02-11-2023

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA

Judge

518-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Petitioner(s)

Shri. Brahmi Durgaparameshwari Sowharda Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Rep. by Rohit K

Adv. Smt. Anjali C. Hunderkar

Respondent(s)

S. Arun Kumar Shetty

Hearing History

Judge: 518-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

19-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

06-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

19-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

31-12-2025

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

18-09-2024
Plea
18-02-2025
Deposition
22-04-2025
Deposition
25-07-2025
Deposition
30-07-2025
Deposition
09-09-2025
Deposition

Summary In Civil Case No. 1296/2023, dated 09-09-2025, the witness was examined regarding a loan dispute involving a society (Bahirundurga Premeshwari Society). The court found that the plaintiff and defendant's family members had obtained loans of one lakh rupees each from the society, with conflicting claims about repayment. The court concluded that the witness's testimony regarding loan disbursement and repayment was inconsistent and partly false, noting discrepancies in the documentation and contradictions in statements about the three family members involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In Civil Case No. 1296/2023, dated 09-09-2025, the witness was examined regarding a loan dispute involving a society (Bahirundurga Premeshwari Society). The court found that the plaintiff and defendant's family members had obtained loans of one lakh rupees each from the society, with conflicting claims about repayment. The court concluded that the witness's testimony regarding loan disbursement and repayment was inconsistent and partly false, noting discrepancies in the documentation and contradictions in statements about the three family members involved. 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, KUNDAPURA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case