Kiran Rohidas Rathod vs Laxmikant Ramchandra Chillal — 149/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 15th April 2026.
Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application
CNR: MHSO010034322025
e-Filing Number
12-11-2025
Filing Number
2328/2025
Filing Date
12-11-2025
Registration No
149/2025
Registration Date
13-11-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Solapur
Judge
8-District Judge - 1 and Additional Session Judge
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kiran Rohidas Rathod
Adv. Mashal Ganesh Siddaram
Respondent(s)
Laxmikant Ramchandra Chillal
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge - 1 and Additional Session Judge
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kiran Rohidas Rathod v. Laxmikant Ramchandra Chillal (149/2025) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Kiran Rohidas Rathod's revision application challenging the trial court's denial of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act in a cheque dishonor case (₹10 lakh). The court upheld the magistrate's discretionary rejection, finding the lower court properly considered that the accused was present at all hearings, ready for trial, and had documentary evidence to present, making interim relief unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Kiran Rohidas Rathod v. Laxmikant Ramchandra Chillal (149/2025) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Kiran Rohidas Rathod's revision application challenging the trial court's denial of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act in a cheque dishonor case (₹10 lakh). The court upheld the magistrate's discretionary rejection, finding the lower court properly considered that the accused was present at all hearings, ready for trial, and had documentary evidence to present, making interim relief unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts