Shriram Finance Limited Through Mohan Kawduji Gurnule vs Mohamad Akhil Mohamad Rafik — 348/2024

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 36. Status: Steps_Unready. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Arbitration R.D - Arbitration Execution Darkhast

CNR: MHYA050017452024

Steps_Unready

Next Hearing

24th June 2026

e-Filing Number

29-04-2024

Filing Number

312/2024

Filing Date

04-05-2024

Registration No

348/2024

Registration Date

04-05-2024

Court

Civil Judge Senior Division Pusad

Judge

23-Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad

Acts & Sections

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT Section 36

Petitioner(s)

Shriram Finance Limited Through Mohan Kawduji Gurnule

Adv. Yawale M.A.

Respondent(s)

Mohamad Akhil Mohamad Rafik

Hearing History

Judge: 23-Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division., Pusad

21-04-2026

Steps_Unready

12-03-2026

Steps_Unready

14-01-2026

Awaiting Warrant

19-11-2025

Awaiting Warrant

23-09-2025

Steps

Interim Orders

09-08-2024
Order on Exhibit

Summary The court ordered the issuance of a movable property attachment warrant against the debtor (Mo. Akil) under Order 21 Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 88,274/- as per the judgment dated 31/07/2023 in Civil Case No. 19373/2022, despite receiving multiple notices. Since the debtor did not deposit the amount or file any appeal against the judgment, the court found it justified to attach the debtor's movable property to recover the debt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court ordered the issuance of a movable property attachment warrant against the debtor (Mo. Akil) under Order 21 Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 88,274/- as per the judgment dated 31/07/2023 in Civil Case No. 19373/2022, despite receiving multiple notices. Since the debtor did not deposit the amount or file any appeal against the judgment, the court found it justified to attach the debtor's movable property to recover the debt. 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 Senior Division Pusad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case