ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR vs NILKANTH MART — 103/2026

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: GJAH070001412026

Filing Number

103/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

103/2026

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 GUMASTA INSPECTOR

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NILKANTH MART

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, finding him guilty of violating labor regulations in Dholka municipality. Considering mitigating factors—the accused's poor economic status, sole family earner with dependents, first-time offender, and promise of future compliance—the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the maximum penalty, emphasizing rehabilitation over harsh punishment. 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. 103/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, finding him guilty of violating labor regulations in Dholka municipality. Considering mitigating factors—the accused's poor economic status, sole family earner with dependents, first-time offender, and promise of future compliance—the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the maximum penalty, emphasizing rehabilitation over harsh punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case