Krushi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Ner through Secretary vs Shivkumar Hiralal Byahut Advocate - Mirza Latif Rafiq — 22/2021
Case under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHYA150005182021
Filing Number
80/2021
Filing Date
21-06-2021
Registration No
22/2021
Registration Date
21-06-2021
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Ner
Judge
1-Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Ner
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Krushi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Ner through Secretary
Adv. Jungare R.A.
Respondent(s)
Shivkumar Hiralal Byahut Advocate - Mirza Latif Rafiq
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Ner
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. 4,71,062 in market fees from the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ner) failed to provide sufficient evidence—such as audit records, transaction documents, or official registers—to prove that the defendant owed this specific amount for market fees during any particular period. While the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs. 4,71,062 that was later dishonored, the court determined this alone was insufficient proof of the debt's validity without supporting documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. 4,71,062 in market fees from the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ner) failed to provide sufficient evidence—such as audit records, transaction documents, or official registers—to prove that the defendant owed this specific amount for market fees during any particular period. While the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs. 4,71,062 that was later dishonored, the court determined this alone was insufficient proof of the debt's validity without supporting documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts