Sandeep Shantaram Watpade vs Special Recovery Officer Maruti Rural Non Agricultural Coperative Credit Society Limited Advocate - Hadole Pravin B. — 57/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHNS130003072024

Evidence

Next Hearing

23rd June 2026

e-Filing Number

15-02-2024

Filing Number

76/2024

Filing Date

16-02-2024

Registration No

57/2024

Registration Date

16-02-2024

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Pimpalgaon Baswant

Judge

3-2ND JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC PIMPALGAON

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 9

Petitioner(s)

Sandeep Shantaram Watpade

Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

Sagar Shantaram Watpadade

Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

Sunanda Shantaram Watpade

Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

Respondent(s)

Special Recovery Officer Maruti Rural Non Agricultural Coperative Credit Society Limited Advocate - Hadole Pravin B.

Shantaram Yashwant Vatpade

Hearing History

Judge: 3-2ND JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC PIMPALGAON

21-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

27-01-2026

Evidence

23-12-2025

Evidence

26-11-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

22-07-2024
Order on T.I.

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain the auction of ancestral agricultural property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting contradictions in their claims (plaintiff no.2 denied obtaining the Rs. 8,00,000 loan despite documentary evidence showing he had applied for it) and suspecting collusion between plaintiffs and defendant no.2. The court ruled that plaintiffs did not come with "clean hands" and were therefore ineligible for equitable relief; additionally, balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favor them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain the auction of ancestral agricultural property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting contradictions in their claims (plaintiff no.2 denied obtaining the Rs. 8,00,000 loan despite documentary evidence showing he had applied for it) and suspecting collusion between plaintiffs and defendant no.2. The court ruled that plaintiffs did not come with "clean hands" and were therefore ineligible for equitable relief; additionally, balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favor them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Pimpalgaon Baswant All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case