Bank Of India Karad vs Ramchandra Maruti Waydande — 71/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section recovery. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHST050006022017
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
596/2017
Filing Date
31-07-2017
Registration No
71/2017
Registration Date
26-10-2017
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bank Of India Karad
Adv. S.B.Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
Ramchandra Maruti Waydande
Yashwantro Mohite Krishna Sahakari sakhar Kar.Ltd.Chairman
Adv. Patil G. V.
Yashwantro Mohite Krishna Sahakari sakhar Kar.Ltd.Managing Directror
Adv. Patil G. V.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 01-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: Defendant No.2 (Yashwantrao Mohite Sugar Factory) sought to frame an additional issue alleging that Bank of India committed fraud in the loan transaction and that no loan amount was actually disbursed. The court rejected this application, holding that in a simple recovery suit, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the loan disbursement, and fraud allegations can be raised as a defense during trial rather than as a separate issue. The application stands dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Defendant No.2 (Yashwantrao Mohite Sugar Factory) sought to frame an additional issue alleging that Bank of India committed fraud in the loan transaction and that no loan amount was actually disbursed. The court rejected this application, holding that in a simple recovery suit, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the loan disbursement, and fraud allegations can be raised as a defense during trial rather than as a separate issue. The application stands dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts