ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMSTA INSPECTOR DHOLKA vs HAKIMI AUTO PARTS MILKANTH PEREDICE — 72/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 Section 7. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH070001102026

Filing Number

72/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

72/2026

Registration Date

16-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHOLKA

Judge

6-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 Section 7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMSTA INSPECTOR DHOLKA

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HAKIMI AUTO PARTS MILKANTH PEREDICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Dholka Magistrate Court found the accused guilty under Section 07 of the Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act and sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,000 (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic status, family burden, and first-time offense, and imposed a lesser punishment than the maximum prescribed to enable rehabilitation and maintain social dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 72/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Dholka Magistrate Court found the accused guilty under Section 07 of the Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act and sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,000 (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic status, family burden, and first-time offense, and imposed a lesser punishment than the maximum prescribed to enable rehabilitation and maintain social dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case