Bank Of Baroda vs Juber Taher Sayyad — 194/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHNS190014352022

Filing Number

274/2022

Filing Date

07-Sep-2022

Registration No

194/2022

Registration Date

07-Sep-2022

Court

Civil and Criminal Court ,Yeola

Judge

2-Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bank Of Baroda

    Adv. Kulkarni Gaurav N.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Juber Taher Sayyad

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court decided in favor of Bank of Baroda (plaintiff) against defendant Juber Toher Saiyed in a loan recovery suit. The court found that the defendant obtained a ₹2,00,000 loan under the Prime Minister Mudra Yojana in June 2017 at 8.30% per annum interest but failed to repay principal or interest. The court ordered the defendant to pay ₹3,06,442.62 (principal plus accrued simple interest up to July 2, 2022) and future simple interest at 8.30% per annum until full payment, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  9. 13-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  10. 19-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  11. 14-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  12. 20-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  13. 05-Jul-2025

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  14. 10-Jun-2025

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  15. 01-Mar-2025

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  16. 21-Dec-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  17. 15-Oct-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  18. 25-Jul-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  19. 10-Apr-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  20. 20-Mar-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  21. 31-Jan-2024

    Ex_Party Hearing

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  22. 22-Nov-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  23. 27-Sep-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  24. 04-Aug-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  25. 18-Jul-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  26. 25-Apr-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  27. 16-Mar-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  28. 23-Jan-2023

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  29. 12-Dec-2022

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  30. 05-Nov-2022

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  31. 17-Oct-2022

    Notice_Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  32. 08-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 07-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 194/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court decided in favor of Bank of Baroda (plaintiff) against defendant Juber Toher Saiyed in a loan recovery suit. The court found that the defendant obtained a ₹2,00,000 loan under the Prime Minister Mudra Yojana in June 2017 at 8.30% per annum interest but failed to repay principal or interest. The court ordered the defendant to pay ₹3,06,442.62 (principal plus accrued simple interest up to July 2, 2022) and future simple interest at 8.30% per annum until full payment, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case