Central Bank of India vs Nagnath Pawar Advocate - Shete Sachin Neminath — 451/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 6. Disposed: Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 31st March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130003372018
Filing Number
351/2018
Filing Date
27-04-2018
Registration No
451/2018
Registration Date
17-07-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Central Bank of India
Adv. Thokade Vilas Digambr
Respondent(s)
Nagnath Pawar Advocate - Shete Sachin Neminath
Satyawan Gadsingh
Chandrakant Salgar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Central Bank of India v. Nagnath Pawar & Ors. Court Decision: The suit was partly decreed. The court ordered defendants to jointly/severally pay ₹1,93,906 within 2 months, plus 6% per annum interest from suit filing date until recovery (reduced from plaintiff's claimed 7% since the loan was agricultural, not commercial). Key Reasoning: The court found that defendant No.1 obtained a ₹1,20,000 cash credit agricultural loan in 2010, with defendants No.2 and No.3 as guarantors. Despite a demand notice in November 2017, defendants failed to repay the outstanding balance of ₹1,92,456. The court accepted the plaintiff bank's documentary evidence (mortgage deed, promissory note, guarantee form, loan account statements) as defendants provided no contrary evidence and the case proceeded exparte against defendants No.2 and No.3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Central Bank of India v. Nagnath Pawar & Ors. Court Decision: The suit was partly decreed. The court ordered defendants to jointly/severally pay ₹1,93,906 within 2 months, plus 6% per annum interest from suit filing date until recovery (reduced from plaintiff's claimed 7% since the loan was agricultural, not commercial). Key Reasoning: The court found that defendant No.1 obtained a ₹1,20,000 cash credit agricultural loan in 2010, with defendants No.2 and No.3 as guarantors. Despite a demand notice in November 2017, defendants failed to repay the outstanding balance of ₹1,92,456. The court accepted the plaintiff bank's documentary evidence (mortgage deed, promissory note, guarantee form, loan account statements) as defendants provided no contrary evidence and the case proceeded exparte against defendants No.2 and No.3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts