Vilas alias Sunil Krishna Gurav vs Rajendra Marutrao Khade Advocate - M. S. Jadhav — 43/2023
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO180001032023
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
61/2023
Filing Date
03-02-2023
Registration No
43/2023
Registration Date
04-02-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad
Judge
3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas alias Sunil Krishna Gurav
Adv. D. D. Magdum
Respondent(s)
Rajendra Marutrao Khade Advocate - M. S. Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 43/2023 Outcome: The court rejected the complainant's application for interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Key Details: Vilas Gurav sought 20% interim compensation (₹60,000) from accused Rajendra Khade on a dishonored cheque of ₹3,00,000. The court found that while Section 143-A grants discretionary power (not mandatory), the complainant failed to file prima facie documentary evidence supporting his claim that he had raised ₹8,95,000 through gold loans and business surplus to lend to the accused. Without such corroborating evidence at the preliminary stage, the court determined it was not appropriate to exercise discretion in granting interim compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 43/2023 Outcome: The court rejected the complainant's application for interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Key Details: Vilas Gurav sought 20% interim compensation (₹60,000) from accused Rajendra Khade on a dishonored cheque of ₹3,00,000. The court found that while Section 143-A grants discretionary power (not mandatory), the complainant failed to file prima facie documentary evidence supporting his claim that he had raised ₹8,95,000 through gold loans and business surplus to lend to the accused. Without such corroborating evidence at the preliminary stage, the court determined it was not appropriate to exercise discretion in granting interim compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts