MS Sai Yog Agencies Through Proprietor Urmila Subhash Thorat vs Central Bank Of India Through Branch Manager Advocate - Navhate V.E. — 173/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 450. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 17th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU030012172026
e-Filing Number
09-01-2026
Filing Number
1217/2026
Filing Date
16-01-2026
Registration No
173/2026
Registration Date
16-01-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Aurangabad
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MS Sai Yog Agencies Through Proprietor Urmila Subhash Thorat
Adv. Shere Patil D.S.
Respondent(s)
Central Bank Of India Through Branch Manager Advocate - Navhate V.E.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
Disposed
Order
Order
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-03-2026 | Order |
| 16-03-2026 | Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 03-02-2026 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The court rejected Ms. Sai Yog Agencies' application under Section 450 of BNSS 2023 to transfer a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint (SCC No.22370/2024) from the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Aurangabad to another court. The applicant claimed bias and injustice, alleging the judge was forcing proceedings and that settlement was preferable; however, the court found her claims unsubstantiated, noting she appeared only after a warrant was issued and had not genuinely pursued mediation or Lok Adalat despite claiming settlement intent. The application was dismissed as lacking merit and appearing designed to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court rejected Ms. Sai Yog Agencies' application under Section 450 of BNSS 2023 to transfer a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint (SCC No.22370/2024) from the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Aurangabad to another court. The applicant claimed bias and injustice, alleging the judge was forcing proceedings and that settlement was preferable; however, the court found her claims unsubstantiated, noting she appeared only after a warrant was issued and had not genuinely pursued mediation or Lok Adalat despite claiming settlement intent. The application was dismissed as lacking merit and appearing designed to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts