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
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
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
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-12-2025 | Evidence | |
| 26-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts