Vishanu Muralidhar Vakade vs Shripad Digambar Mandave — 1035/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE on 08th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSO180020802022
Filing Number
1641/2022
Filing Date
18-11-2022
Registration No
1035/2022
Registration Date
19-12-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mangalwedha
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mangalwedha
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vishanu Muralidhar Vakade
Adv. Patil Shivaji Pandurang
Respondent(s)
Shripad Digambar Mandave
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mangalwedha
Disposed
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Steps_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-05-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 13-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 12-12-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 28-11-2025 | Steps_Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the complaint filed by Vishanu Muralidhar Vakade against Shripad Digambar Mandave under Section 256 CrPC on 08.05.2026. The Judicial Magistrate found that despite the case being over 3 years old (filed 18.11.2022) and multiple adjournments for dismissal, the complainant and his advocate repeatedly failed to appear before the court, demonstrating lack of interest in actively pursuing the matter. The court reasoned that maintaining the dormant case served no purpose and unnecessarily burdened the judicial system. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the complaint filed by Vishanu Muralidhar Vakade against Shripad Digambar Mandave under Section 256 CrPC on 08.05.2026. The Judicial Magistrate found that despite the case being over 3 years old (filed 18.11.2022) and multiple adjournments for dismissal, the complainant and his advocate repeatedly failed to appear before the court, demonstrating lack of interest in actively pursuing the matter. The court reasoned that maintaining the dormant case served no purpose and unnecessarily burdened the judicial system. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts