S K Enterprises thru Prop. Suvarna Mangesh Kadu vs Divya Agro thru Prop. Dashrath Vishnu Kasbe — 695/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 12th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS230011802022
Next Hearing
12th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1036/2022
Filing Date
04-07-2022
Registration No
695/2022
Registration Date
04-07-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Igatpuri
Judge
3-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S K Enterprises thru Prop. Suvarna Mangesh Kadu
Adv. kale Sunil V.
Respondent(s)
Divya Agro thru Prop. Dashrath Vishnu Kasbe
Manjiri Dashrath Kasbe
Hearing History
Judge: 3-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by complainant S.K. Enterprises (Suvarna Kadu) seeking permission to conduct proceedings through a General Power of Attorney was allowed. The court granted permission for the complainant to carry out proceedings in the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case through her husband (Mangesh Devram Kadu) as Power of Attorney holder, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra that such appointment is legally competent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by complainant S.K. Enterprises (Suvarna Kadu) seeking permission to conduct proceedings through a General Power of Attorney was allowed. The court granted permission for the complainant to carry out proceedings in the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case through her husband (Mangesh Devram Kadu) as Power of Attorney holder, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra that such appointment is legally competent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts