Swami Samartha Milk and Milk Agro Thru Swati Babasaheb Patil vs Shree Krishna Milk Agency Proprietor Mr Yogesh Vasant Malekar — 172/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Plea / Particulars. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO190004322025
e-Filing Number
03-07-2025
Filing Number
280/2025
Filing Date
03-Jul-2025
Registration No
172/2025
Registration Date
04-Jul-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
1-Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
Last updated 26-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Swami Samartha Milk and Milk Agro Thru Swati Babasaheb Patil
Adv. A. M. Dhokal
Respondent(s)
-
1.Shree Krishna Milk Agency Proprietor Mr Yogesh Vasant Malekar
-
2.Yogesh Vasant Malekar
Adv. Rahul S. Ubale
Case History
-
04-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
16-May-2026
Plea / Particulars
Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
-
23-Mar-2026
Plea / Particulars
Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
-
17-Jan-2026
Plea / Particulars
Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
-
15-Nov-2025
Order on Exhibit
Case Summary - 172/2025 The court issued process against accused Yogesh Vasant Malekar (proprietor of Shree Krishna Milk Agency) for cheque bounce offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had issued two dishonoured cheques totalling Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant, which were bounced due to insufficient funds, and failed to pay despite demand notice. Summons to be issued accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Nov-2025
Awaiting Summons
Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
-
20-Sep-2025
Verification
Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari
-
08-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 172/2025
Case Summary - 172/2025 The court issued process against accused Yogesh Vasant Malekar (proprietor of Shree Krishna Milk Agency) for cheque bounce offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had issued two dishonoured cheques totalling Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant, which were bounced due to insufficient funds, and failed to pay despite demand notice. Summons to be issued accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts