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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Section 374

Petitioner(s)

Shivay Enterprises

Adv. Murkute J.M.

Respondent(s)

Aditya Uttam Rathod

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

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

17-01-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case