Bank Of India Karad vs Rajaram Shripati Mohite Advocate - Jadhav A.V. — 94/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Recvorey. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHST050006212017
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
613/2017
Filing Date
31-07-2017
Registration No
94/2017
Registration Date
01-11-2017
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
4-3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bank Of India Karad
Adv. SHAH M R, SHAH M R
Respondent(s)
Rajaram Shripati Mohite Advocate - Jadhav A.V.
Yashwantro Mohite Krishna Sahakari sakhar Kar.Ltd.Chairman
Adv. Patil G. V.
Yashwantro Mohite Krishna Sahakari sakhar Kar.Ltd.Managing Director
Adv. Patil G. V.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 10-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 25-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Bank of India v. Rajaram Mohite (Spl.C.S. No.94/2017), the court rejected the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908. The court held that the pre-institution notice requirement under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not applicable because the defendant's liability as a guarantor under a deed of guarantee constitutes an independent contractual obligation, not an act touching the sugar factory's business. The court also noted that Section 9A of the CPC has been deleted in Maharashtra, making the request for framing a preliminary issue moot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Bank of India v. Rajaram Mohite (Spl.C.S. No.94/2017), the court rejected the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908. The court held that the pre-institution notice requirement under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not applicable because the defendant's liability as a guarantor under a deed of guarantee constitutes an independent contractual obligation, not an act touching the sugar factory's business. The court also noted that Section 9A of the CPC has been deleted in Maharashtra, making the request for framing a preliminary issue moot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts