Bank Of Baroda vs Manoj Balasaheb Jadhav — 31/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 23rd March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS190003942020
Filing Number
40/2020
Filing Date
11-Mar-2020
Registration No
31/2020
Registration Date
11-Mar-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Yeola
Judge
5-CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Bank Of Baroda
Adv. Bub Kedarnath J
Respondent(s)
-
1.Manoj Balasaheb Jadhav
-
2.Ganesh Balasaheb Jadhav
-
3.Manik Gatu Bulhe
-
4.Santosh Bhagwat Ghadge
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary The Small Claims Court (Yevatla, Nashik District) ruled in favor of Bank of Baroda against four agricultural borrowers, ordering them to jointly and severally pay Rs. 3,48,835/- (loan principal) plus 9% interest from March 5, 2020 onwards. The court found that the defendants had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- for agricultural purposes but deliberately defaulted on repayment despite repeated demands, and their defense remained uncontested as they failed to appear or present substantive evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
13-Mar-2026
Arguments
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
10-Mar-2026
Arguments
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
10-Feb-2026
Arguments
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
08-Jan-2026
Arguments
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
20-Nov-2025
Defence Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
26-Sep-2025
Defence Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
03-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
17-Jul-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
22-Apr-2025
Hearing
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
17-Feb-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
17-Dec-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
23-Oct-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
16-Aug-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
26-Jul-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
13-Jun-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
26-Apr-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
27-Mar-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
05-Feb-2024
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
11-Dec-2023
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
20-Oct-2023
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
01-Sep-2023
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
11-Jul-2023
Hearing
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
04-May-2023
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
20-Mar-2023
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
13-Feb-2023
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
02-Jan-2023
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
07-Nov-2022
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
27-Sep-2022
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
17-Aug-2022
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
05-Jul-2022
Notice_Unready
CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
12-Apr-2022
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
01-Feb-2022
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
11-Dec-2021
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
23-Nov-2021
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
28-Sep-2021
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
29-Jun-2021
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
08-Mar-2021
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
12-Dec-2020
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
10-Dec-2020
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
14-Sep-2020
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
23-Jul-2020
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
12-Jun-2020
Notice_Unready
Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC
-
11-Mar-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 31/2020
Summary The Small Claims Court (Yevatla, Nashik District) ruled in favor of Bank of Baroda against four agricultural borrowers, ordering them to jointly and severally pay Rs. 3,48,835/- (loan principal) plus 9% interest from March 5, 2020 onwards. The court found that the defendants had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- for agricultural purposes but deliberately defaulted on repayment despite repeated demands, and their defense remained uncontested as they failed to appear or present substantive evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts