Bharat Treding Company vs Pusad Urban Co-op Bank Advocate - Adv D. M. Srhimali — 38/2023

Case under M.c.s. Act 1960 Section 91. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 14-Jul-2026

C.C.A.

CNR: MHCO270000382023

Filing Number

38/2023

Filing Date

04-May-2023

Registration No

38/2023

Registration Date

04-May-2023

Court

Co-operative Court, Amravati

Judge

1-Judge, Co-operative Court

Last updated 02-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

M.c.s. Act 1960 Section 91

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bharat Treding Company

    Adv. Adv A. R. Zatale

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pusad Urban Co-op Bank Advocate - Adv D. M. Srhimali

Case History

  1. 14-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 30-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  3. 22-Jun-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: Bharat Trading Company v. Pusad Urban Co-op Bank (Dispute 38/2023) Bharat Trading Company sought suspension of this cooperative court dispute under Section 93(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, pending resolution of a parallel civil suit (Special Civil Suit No. 49/2025) involving similar fraud allegations against the bank. The company claimed the bank fraudulently transferred Rs. 2.5 crore and sought recovery of Rs. 1 crore with 18% interest. The court rejected the suspension application, finding it lacked merit. The judge noted the dispute was filed in December 2018 while the civil suit was filed in 2024—the reverse sequence prohibited under the statute. The court held that suspension requires the cooperative court to first order that complicated questions of law exist, then allow two months for civil suit filing. Since this procedural requirement was not met, and the parties and prayer clauses differed between proceedings, suspension was improper. The application was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 22-Jun-2026

    W. S.

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  5. 17-Jun-2026

    Order

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  6. 09-Jun-2026

    Order

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  7. 05-May-2026

    Hearing

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  8. 21-Apr-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  9. 13-Apr-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  10. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  11. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  12. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  13. 23-Feb-2026

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  14. 11-Feb-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  15. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  16. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  17. 13-Dec-2025

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  18. 25-Nov-2025

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  19. 17-Nov-2025

    Amended W.S.

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  20. 03-Nov-2025

    Amended W.S.

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  21. 28-Oct-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  22. 10-Oct-2025

    Order on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  23. 20-Sep-2025

    Order on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  24. 14-Aug-2025

    Stayed by Appellate Court

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  25. 22-Jul-2025

    Stayed by Appellate Court

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  26. 15-Jul-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  27. 21-Jun-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  28. 28-May-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  29. 23-Apr-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  30. 15-Mar-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  31. 17-Feb-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  32. 20-Jan-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  33. 21-Dec-2024

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  34. 14-Nov-2024

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  35. 19-Oct-2024

    Amended Plaint

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  36. 01-Oct-2024

    Order

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  37. 20-Sep-2024

    Order

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  38. 06-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  39. 23-Aug-2024

    Say / Hearing on Exh

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  40. 06-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  41. 12-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  42. 12-Jun-2024

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  43. 07-May-2024

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  44. 15-Apr-2024

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  45. 11-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  46. 12-Feb-2024

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  47. 20-Jan-2024

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  48. 14-Dec-2023

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  49. 28-Nov-2023

    Compliance

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  50. 07-Oct-2023

    Compliance

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  51. 22-Sep-2023

    Compliance

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  52. 30-Aug-2023

    Compliance

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  53. 18-Aug-2023

    Issues

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  54. 17-Jul-2023

    W. S.

    Judge, Co-operative Court

  55. 26-Jun-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  56. 04-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 38/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Bharat Trading Company v. Pusad Urban Co-op Bank (Dispute 38/2023) Bharat Trading Company sought suspension of this cooperative court dispute under Section 93(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, pending resolution of a parallel civil suit (Special Civil Suit No. 49/2025) involving similar fraud allegations against the bank. The company claimed the bank fraudulently transferred Rs. 2.5 crore and sought recovery of Rs. 1 crore with 18% interest. The court rejected the suspension application, finding it lacked merit. The judge noted the dispute was filed in December 2018 while the civil suit was filed in 2024—the reverse sequence prohibited under the statute. The court held that suspension requires the cooperative court to first order that complicated questions of law exist, then allow two months for civil suit filing. Since this procedural requirement was not met, and the parties and prayer clauses differed between proceedings, suspension was improper. The application was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case