Shivay Enterprises vs Aditya Uttam Rathod — 2/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal
CNR: MHAU170000302026
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
09-01-2026
Filing Number
14/2026
Filing Date
12-01-2026
Registration No
2/2026
Registration Date
12-01-2026
Court
Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivay Enterprises
Adv. Murkute J.M.
Respondent(s)
Aditya Uttam Rathod
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Interim Orders
Case 2/2026 Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan suspended Shivay Enterprises' imprisonment sentence pending appeal and granted bail, subject to depositing Rs. 38,80,000 (20% of the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,94,00,000). The appellant was also required to execute a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the case qualified as an exception to the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding no merit in the claim that trial court error prejudiced the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 2/2026 Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan suspended Shivay Enterprises' imprisonment sentence pending appeal and granted bail, subject to depositing Rs. 38,80,000 (20% of the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,94,00,000). The appellant was also required to execute a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the case qualified as an exception to the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding no merit in the claim that trial court error prejudiced the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts