Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd vs Maroti Aatmaram Khandagale — 405/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 28th April 2026.
Arbitration R.D - Arbitration Execution Darkhast
CNR: MHWS010013112019
Filing Number
698/2019
Filing Date
13-08-2019
Registration No
405/2019
Registration Date
13-08-2019
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd
Adv. CHANDANI RAKESH GORDHANDAS
Respondent(s)
Maroti Aatmaram Khandagale
Pratap Devidas Gawali
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Disposed
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Warrant |
| 12-03-2026 | Awaiting Warrant |
| 13-02-2026 | Awaiting Warrant |
| 10-12-2025 | Awaiting Warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Judge dismissed Shriram Transport Finance's execution application for default on 28/04/2026, finding that the respondents (Maroti Aatmaram Khandagale and Pratap Devidas Gawali) and their advocate were repeatedly absent and showed no interest in the proceedings despite the case pending over 7 years. Citing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court directions to expeditiously dispose matters older than 5 years, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by further delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Judge dismissed Shriram Transport Finance's execution application for default on 28/04/2026, finding that the respondents (Maroti Aatmaram Khandagale and Pratap Devidas Gawali) and their advocate were repeatedly absent and showed no interest in the proceedings despite the case pending over 7 years. Citing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court directions to expeditiously dispose matters older than 5 years, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by further delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts