THE MALPUR NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD.SHREE VISHANGKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MAHETA vs RUPESHKUMAR BABULAL MISTRI — 1014/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR050012342025
Filing Number
1014/2025
Filing Date
29-Dec-2025
Registration No
1014/2025
Registration Date
29-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALPUR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE MALPUR NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD.SHREE VISHANGKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MAHETA
Adv. N R VAGHELA
Respondent(s)
-
1.RUPESHKUMAR BABULAL MISTRI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
The National Lok Adalat at Malpur ruled on March 14, 2026, that the respondent (Rupeshkumar Babulal Mistri) failed to prove his defense in the case filed under Clause 08 by the petitioners (Malpur Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Shree Vishangkumar Hasmukhlal Maheta). The court ordered the respondent to pay case fees and upheld the petitioners' claim based on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1014/2025
The National Lok Adalat at Malpur ruled on March 14, 2026, that the respondent (Rupeshkumar Babulal Mistri) failed to prove his defense in the case filed under Clause 08 by the petitioners (Malpur Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Shree Vishangkumar Hasmukhlal Maheta). The court ordered the respondent to pay case fees and upheld the petitioners' claim based on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts