M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs SILAMBARASAN RAJI — 16381/2025

Case under Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 Section 25. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK020273782025

Filing Number

16381/2025

Filing Date

06-Nov-2025

Registration No

16381/2025

Registration Date

06-Nov-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT PALANPUR

Judge

2-6th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 Section 25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL

    Adv. P D PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SILAMBARASAN RAJI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed the petition, ruling that there were no substantial relations or connections in the case to warrant further proceedings. The decision was based on finding that the accused did not have sufficient nexus to the jurisdiction, and therefore the case was rejected at the initial stage without proceeding to substantive hearing before the public court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    6th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 31-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    6th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 17-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    7th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 16381/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that there were no substantial relations or connections in the case to warrant further proceedings. The decision was based on finding that the accused did not have sufficient nexus to the jurisdiction, and therefore the case was rejected at the initial stage without proceeding to substantive hearing before the public court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case