Satappa Shreepati Patil vs Krushnat Aanda Belekar — 66/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

Awaiting Summons Next hearing 06-Jul-2026 this date has passed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHKO120001312026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

105/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

66/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Satappa Shreepati Patil

    Adv. PATIL KRISHNAT ALIAS SARJERAO BABURAO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Krushnat Aanda Belekar

Case History

  1. 06-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 66/2026 Summary: The court issued process against accused Krushnat Aanda Belekar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant Satappa Shreepati Patil claimed a legally enforceable debt for which the accused issued two cheques (Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000) dated 20/11/2025, both dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court found prima facie evidence sufficient as the complainant complied with all statutory requirements including timely demand notice and complaint filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 66/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 66/2026 Summary: The court issued process against accused Krushnat Aanda Belekar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant Satappa Shreepati Patil claimed a legally enforceable debt for which the accused issued two cheques (Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000) dated 20/11/2025, both dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court found prima facie evidence sufficient as the complainant complied with all statutory requirements including timely demand notice and complaint filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case