Sadguru Gramin Bigarsheti Shakari Patsanstha Choul through Nilesh Krushna Raut vs Dipali Vijay Gharat and other 1 Advocate - Patil A. B. — 721/2018
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG030017432023
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1069/2018
Filing Date
19-10-2018
Registration No
721/2018
Registration Date
19-10-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Raigarh
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sadguru Gramin Bigarsheti Shakari Patsanstha Choul through Nilesh Krushna Raut
Adv. Joshi S. N.
Respondent(s)
Dipali Vijay Gharat and other 1 Advocate - Patil A. B.
Vijay Govind Gharat
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against bank-related grievances, finding insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The court ruled that Respondent No. 1 (debtor) had validly taken the loan with proper documentation, that Respondent No. 2 was neither a debtor nor a party to the proceedings, and that the bank followed proper procedures regarding account statements and recovery efforts. The court also rejected claims of software manipulation and improper maintenance of account records, finding the bank's operations to be in order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against bank-related grievances, finding insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The court ruled that Respondent No. 1 (debtor) had validly taken the loan with proper documentation, that Respondent No. 2 was neither a debtor nor a party to the proceedings, and that the bank followed proper procedures regarding account statements and recovery efforts. The court also rejected claims of software manipulation and improper maintenance of account records, finding the bank's operations to be in order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts