Markhandeya Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha, Gadchirolil vs Ramesh Narayanrao Mankar Advocate - Siddique Mansuri — 124/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHGA030001742019
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
174/2019
Filing Date
16-02-2019
Registration No
124/2019
Registration Date
16-02-2019
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli
Judge
7-Chief Judicial Magistrate Gadchiroli.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Markhandeya Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha, Gadchirolil
Adv. K.S.Akhade
Respondent(s)
Ramesh Narayanrao Mankar Advocate - Siddique Mansuri
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Chief Judicial Magistrate Gadchiroli.
Arguments
Citation
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-05-2026 | Citation |
| 02-05-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 15-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 08-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 124/2019 In this Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli rejected the complainant society's application to produce an authorization resolution dated August 9, 2017, after the witness's cross-examination was completed. The court held that the complainant failed to produce this document at the appropriate stage despite possessing it since 2017 and being given reasonable opportunities, and attempting to introduce it post-cross-examination would prejudice the accused's right to mount an effective defense. The application was rejected without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 124/2019 In this Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli rejected the complainant society's application to produce an authorization resolution dated August 9, 2017, after the witness's cross-examination was completed. The court held that the complainant failed to produce this document at the appropriate stage despite possessing it since 2017 and being given reasonable opportunities, and attempting to introduce it post-cross-examination would prejudice the accused's right to mount an effective defense. The application was rejected without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts