Haresh Traders Through Suresh Choithram Chandwani vs Pritam Hotel Daflapur Propra Radhakka Manjunath Yalgar — 10/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 37. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED EX-PARTE on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

Sum.Civ.Suit - Summary Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO110002332025

e-Filing Number

01-02-2025

Filing Number

71/2025

Filing Date

03-Feb-2025

Registration No

10/2025

Registration Date

03-Feb-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Peth Vadgaon

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED EX-PARTE

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 37

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Haresh Traders Through Suresh Choithram Chandwani

    Adv. KHADE RAVASAHEB BAPUSAHEB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pritam Hotel Daflapur Propra Radhakka Manjunath Yalgar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Haresh Traders v. Pritam Hotel Dafalapur Decision: The court partly decreed the suit, awarding the plaintiff Rs.2,72,399/- in recovery from the defendant (hotel proprietor) for unpaid liquor supplies purchased on credit, with interest at 8% per annum from the judgment date until realization, with costs against the defendant. Key Reasoning: The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons, causing the plaintiff's allegations to be deemed admitted under Order XXXVII Rule 3, CPC 1908. The plaintiff's unchallenged documentary evidence (ledger abstract, invoices, legal notice) established the outstanding debt of Rs.2,39,321/- as of December 2024. Though the plaintiff claimed 18% interest, the court reduced it to 8% per annum, finding the contractual rate punitive/unreasonable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Steps

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    Steps

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  11. 05-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  12. 06-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  13. 09-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  14. 02-Aug-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  15. 14-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  16. 21-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  17. 05-May-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  18. 21-Apr-2025

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  19. 18-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  20. 11-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth-Vadgaon.

  21. 07-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 03-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Haresh Traders v. Pritam Hotel Dafalapur Decision: The court partly decreed the suit, awarding the plaintiff Rs.2,72,399/- in recovery from the defendant (hotel proprietor) for unpaid liquor supplies purchased on credit, with interest at 8% per annum from the judgment date until realization, with costs against the defendant. Key Reasoning: The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons, causing the plaintiff's allegations to be deemed admitted under Order XXXVII Rule 3, CPC 1908. The plaintiff's unchallenged documentary evidence (ledger abstract, invoices, legal notice) established the outstanding debt of Rs.2,39,321/- as of December 2024. Though the plaintiff claimed 18% interest, the court reduced it to 8% per annum, finding the contractual rate punitive/unreasonable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case