APMC Sindy Rly vs Shreekrushna Gining And Pressing Nagpur — 400855/2015

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHWR040011682015

Arguments

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

Filing Number

400855/2015

Filing Date

07-10-2015

Registration No

400855/2015

Registration Date

07-10-2015

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Seloo

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND JMFC, SELOO.

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

APMC Sindy Rly

Adv. Rathi R. R

Respondent(s)

Shreekrushna Gining And Pressing Nagpur

Atul Talatule

Sunil Talatule

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND JMFC, SELOO.

18-04-2026

Arguments

25-03-2026

Arguments

11-03-2026

Arguments

25-02-2026

Arguments

11-02-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

20-12-2023
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The court rejected two applications (Exh. 70 and Exh. 68) filed by the accused in cheque dishonor cases (u/s 138 NI Act) pending since 2015. The accused sought permission to adduce evidence from bank managers after closing his defense evidence and after the case was fixed for final arguments. The court found this to be a deliberate delay tactic, noting the accused had ample prior opportunity to examine witnesses but failed to do so without cogent reasons. The accused is directed to argue the case expeditiously with the case fixed for his final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected two applications (Exh. 70 and Exh. 68) filed by the accused in cheque dishonor cases (u/s 138 NI Act) pending since 2015. The accused sought permission to adduce evidence from bank managers after closing his defense evidence and after the case was fixed for final arguments. The court found this to be a deliberate delay tactic, noting the accused had ample prior opportunity to examine witnesses but failed to do so without cogent reasons. The accused is directed to argue the case expeditiously with the case fixed for his final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Seloo All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case