ANAND RAM TANDON vs PAWAN KR. MAHATO — 120/2026

Case under The Code of Criminal Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1972 Section 123. Disposed: Uncontested--EXPARTE DECREE on 30th April 2026.

Case disposed

Scc Suit

CNR: WBSP070004472026

Filing Number

428/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

120/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

Additional District Judge, Sealdeh, South 24 Parganas

Judge

7-Scc

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EXPARTE DECREE

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Code of Criminal Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1972 Section 123

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANAND RAM TANDON

    Adv. INDRANI GHOSH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN KR. MAHATO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    orderView PDF

    Summary of Case 120/2026 The court decreed Anand Ram Tandon's suit against Pawan Kr. Mahato for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- lent as an accommodation loan on 23/03/2023. The court found Tandon's unchallenged evidence and promissory note credible, accepting his claim that the loan was to be repaid on demand. Mahato was ordered to pay the decretal amount within three months, with liberty for execution if payment fails; however, the court imposed a Rs. 75/- penalty on the plaintiff for non-compliance with the Bengal Money Lender's Act licensing requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Scc

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Exparte Hearing

    Scc

  5. 22-Apr-2026

    Exparte Hearing

    Scc

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    Scc

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 120/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 120/2026 The court decreed Anand Ram Tandon's suit against Pawan Kr. Mahato for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- lent as an accommodation loan on 23/03/2023. The court found Tandon's unchallenged evidence and promissory note credible, accepting his claim that the loan was to be repaid on demand. Mahato was ordered to pay the decretal amount within three months, with liberty for execution if payment fails; however, the court imposed a Rs. 75/- penalty on the plaintiff for non-compliance with the Bengal Money Lender's Act licensing requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case