Meta Pixel
CNR: KABC020229102023
PENDING

TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs KARTHIK S

Case Number6340
Date of Filing3 Aug 2023
Case TypeC.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
Last Hearing4 Jul 2025
State--
City--
Year of Filing2023

Party Details

Petitioner
  • TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Respondent
  • KARTHIK S

Case Summary

TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED filed Case No. 6340 in the District Court on 3 Aug 2023 against KARTHIK S. The case has undergone 10 hearings over 1 year and 11 months. The case is currently pending. 1 order has been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (10)

  • 4JUL 2025
    Disposed

    Judge: SCCH - 11 - I ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 16MAY 2025
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 11 - I ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 15APR 2025
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 11 - I ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 10FEB 2025
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 11 - I ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 23DEC 2024
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 11 - I ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 10JUL 2024
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 12 - XI ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 27MAR 2024
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 12 - XI ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 6FEB 2024
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 12 - XI ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 1DEC 2023
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 12 - XI ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗
  • 3AUG 2023
    SUMMONS

    Judge: SCCH - 12 - XI ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

    View Order ↗

Orders (1)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

Complainant absent.

None represented.

Case again called at 4.00 p.m.

None represented for complainant.

Inspite of issuance summons repeatedly, the complainant not assisted in service of summons to accused.

Further, though the complainant received the summons issued by hand, same has not been returned inspite of sufficient time.

The said aspect indicates that the complainant might not be interested in effecting service of summons to the accused and to prosecute the this case.

There exist no valid grounds for again issuing the summons.

Hence, complaint is dismissed for default.