Sumathi Bai vs Raghu @ Raghavendra — 273/2023

Case under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 Section U/s 26, O VII, R 1 and 2. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Hearing Next hearing 11-Jun-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAUP400012862023

Filing Number

273/2023

Filing Date

17-Jan-2023

Registration No

273/2023

Registration Date

17-Jan-2023

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,BAINDURU

Judge

1528-CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 Section U/s 26, O VII, R 1 and 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sumathi Bai

    Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty

  2. 2.Mohan Revankar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Raghu @ Raghavendra

  2. 2.Ramesh

  3. 3.Rama M Mayyadi

  4. 4.Vasu

  5. 5.Mahadeva Bakad

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 19-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 26-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 03-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 02-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 02-May-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 01-Mar-2025

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 06-Feb-2025

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 25-Jan-2025

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 18-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 16-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 04-Jan-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary Case No.: O.S. 273/2023, Date: 04-01-2025 Outcome: The case has been adjourned for further hearing. The court, while examining evidence regarding Survey No. 63/2 and related property matters under the 1964 Act, found insufficient documentation and clarity on land encroachment claims. The court granted adjournment time to the plaintiff to produce additional evidence and address the court's concerns regarding proper land survey documentation and the status of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 04-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 12-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 11-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 07-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 06-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 29-Nov-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  20. 29-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 22-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 08-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 06-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 05-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 19-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 14-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 20-Sep-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  28. 20-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 17-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 18-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 25-Apr-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  32. 25-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 07-Mar-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  34. 07-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  35. 16-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  36. 07-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  37. 26-Jul-2023

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  38. 23-May-2023

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  39. 10-Apr-2023

    For Objections

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  40. 21-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 17-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 273/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: O.S. 273/2023, Date: 04-01-2025 Outcome: The case has been adjourned for further hearing. The court, while examining evidence regarding Survey No. 63/2 and related property matters under the 1964 Act, found insufficient documentation and clarity on land encroachment claims. The court granted adjournment time to the plaintiff to produce additional evidence and address the court's concerns regarding proper land survey documentation and the status of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case