Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Yogesh Kailash Jagtap — 190/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 16th March 2026.
Arbitration R.D - Arbitration Execution Darkhast
CNR: MHWS010011932018
Filing Number
494/2018
Filing Date
03-Dec-2018
Registration No
190/2018
Registration Date
05-Dec-2018
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Adv. BHALEKAR MAHENDRA MOTIRAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.Yogesh Kailash Jagtap
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. v. Yogesh Kailash Jagtap (190/2018) The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dismissed the execution application for default on 16/03/2026. The court found that the defendant (DH) and their advocate were repeatedly absent, and no effective steps were taken to execute the decree over more than 5 years, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following Supreme Court and Bombay High Court directions to expeditiously dispose of matters pending over 5 years, the court dismissed the Darkhast proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
13-Feb-2026
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
16-Jan-2026
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
24-Dec-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
13-Nov-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
10-Oct-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
08-Sep-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
06-Aug-2025
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
12-Jun-2025
Steps
Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim
-
07-Apr-2025
Steps
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
04-Mar-2025
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
03-Jan-2025
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
13-Dec-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
08-Nov-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
10-Sep-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
29-Jul-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
27-Mar-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim
-
07-Feb-2024
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
21-Nov-2023
Steps
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
27-Sep-2023
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
26-Jul-2023
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
14-Mar-2023
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
12-Dec-2022
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
11-Oct-2022
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
19-Jul-2022
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
16-Apr-2022
Notice_Unready
Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim
-
23-Feb-2022
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
04-Jan-2022
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
16-Nov-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
15-Sep-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
12-Jul-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
03-May-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
09-Mar-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
22-Jan-2021
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
21-Nov-2020
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
15-Sep-2020
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
07-Jul-2020
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
27-Apr-2020
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
27-Feb-2020
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
12-Dec-2019
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
23-Oct-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Dec-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 190/2018
Case Summary: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. v. Yogesh Kailash Jagtap (190/2018) The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dismissed the execution application for default on 16/03/2026. The court found that the defendant (DH) and their advocate were repeatedly absent, and no effective steps were taken to execute the decree over more than 5 years, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following Supreme Court and Bombay High Court directions to expeditiously dispose of matters pending over 5 years, the court dismissed the Darkhast proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts