CHANDRAKUMAR LODHI vs YAKRANGI BRICKS — CRR/318/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010082752026

Filing Number

CRR/3524/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRR/318/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 1440 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRAKUMAR LODHI

    Adv. RAJKUMAR PALI,Amit Kumar Sahu,Amit Kumar Sahu, ,PRATIBHA SAHU,Amit Kumar Sahu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.YAKRANGI BRICKS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by accused Chandrakumar Lodhi, upholding the appellate court's order that had set aside the trial court's dismissal of a complaint petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the complaint was wrongly dismissed merely due to the petitioner's absence during COVID-19 lockdown without examining the merits, and therefore remitted the case for fresh consideration within four months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/318/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by accused Chandrakumar Lodhi, upholding the appellate court's order that had set aside the trial court's dismissal of a complaint petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the complaint was wrongly dismissed merely due to the petitioner's absence during COVID-19 lockdown without examining the merits, and therefore remitted the case for fresh consideration within four months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case