Bank of Maharashtra Branch Wadod Bazar Through Branch Manager Santosh Manohar Bhange vs Sofiyabee Shabbir Shaikh — 8/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU110017432022
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
203/2022
Filing Date
23-12-2022
Registration No
8/2023
Registration Date
07-01-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri
Judge
1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bank of Maharashtra Branch Wadod Bazar Through Branch Manager Santosh Manohar Bhange
Adv. Dhakre S.K.
Respondent(s)
Sofiyabee Shabbir Shaikh
Shabbir S/o Nasir Shaikh
Faridaee W/o Mosin Shaikh
Altaf S/o Babu Shaikh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-01-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 8/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed; case resolved against the petitioner (Bank of Maharashtra). The court found critical procedural failures by the Bank in its recovery action against the respondents. The bank failed to properly serve notice to the defendants (notice marked "Not Delivered to addressee cannot be located"), did not produce required visit/inspection reports, provided incomplete documentation regarding the loan bonds, and the bank manager admitted under cross-examination to filing false affidavits and giving false testimony. The court rejected the bank's claims due to these substantial lapses in procedure and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 8/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed; case resolved against the petitioner (Bank of Maharashtra). The court found critical procedural failures by the Bank in its recovery action against the respondents. The bank failed to properly serve notice to the defendants (notice marked "Not Delivered to addressee cannot be located"), did not produce required visit/inspection reports, provided incomplete documentation regarding the loan bonds, and the bank manager admitted under cross-examination to filing false affidavits and giving false testimony. The court rejected the bank's claims due to these substantial lapses in procedure and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts