Sunil Pandharinath Bukate vs Sham Jiyendray Jasnani Advocate - Patil Ajitkumar Balgonda — 150/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 12,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSN020012962019
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1187/2019
Filing Date
03-05-2019
Registration No
150/2019
Registration Date
07-05-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunil Pandharinath Bukate
Adv. Khemalapure Amoghvarsh Bharat
Respondent(s)
Sham Jiyendray Jasnani Advocate - Patil Ajitkumar Balgonda
Chairman Ashta Lokmanya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.
Adv. Patil Ajitkumar Balgonda
Branch Manager Ashta Lokmanya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.
Adv. Patil Ajitkumar Balgonda
M. V. Kukde
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 21-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 01-11-2025 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The plaintiff's application under Section 18 of the CPC in Special Case No. 150/2019 has been dismissed. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of providing two months' notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before filing the suit, and therefore the suit cannot proceed. The defendants' (Respondents 2-4) objection to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the suit has been upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The plaintiff's application under Section 18 of the CPC in Special Case No. 150/2019 has been dismissed. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of providing two months' notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before filing the suit, and therefore the suit cannot proceed. The defendants' (Respondents 2-4) objection to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the suit has been upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts