Raosaheb Deshmukh N. S. P. Ltd Rashin For Clerk Shumbham Anil Sake vs Prashant Walmik Kale — 46/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH220000972026

e-Filing Number

16-01-2026

Filing Number

91/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

46/2026

Registration Date

17-Jan-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Karjat

Judge

8-2nd Jt.cjjd and JMFC, Karjat

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOKADALAT

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Raosaheb Deshmukh N. S. P. Ltd Rashin For Clerk Shumbham Anil Sake

    Adv. NEWASE MAYUR UTTAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prashant Walmik Kale

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The State Public Grievance Redressal Court dismissed the complainant's petition under Section 19 of the Public Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979. The court held that the accused employee cannot be held guilty based merely on the allegation and that evidence must substantiate any misconduct charges. The court directed the complainant to pursue the matter through appropriate legal channels and instructed that any further action be taken in accordance with established procedures and regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt.cjjd and JMFC, Karjat

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.cjjd and JMFC, Karjat

  5. 20-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 46/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The State Public Grievance Redressal Court dismissed the complainant's petition under Section 19 of the Public Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979. The court held that the accused employee cannot be held guilty based merely on the allegation and that evidence must substantiate any misconduct charges. The court directed the complainant to pursue the matter through appropriate legal channels and instructed that any further action be taken in accordance with established procedures and regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case