ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR vs MANTHYA VERATIZ — 110/2026

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: GJAH070001482026

Filing Number

110/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

110/2026

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.MANTHYA VERATIZ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Dholka Magistrate Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act, Section 7, for violations in the municipal area. Considering the accused's poverty, first-time offender status, family circumstances, and potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) instead of the maximum penalty, exercising discretionary powers under established legal precedents. 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. 110/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Dholka Magistrate Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act, Section 7, for violations in the municipal area. Considering the accused's poverty, first-time offender status, family circumstances, and potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) instead of the maximum penalty, exercising discretionary powers under established legal precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case