M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs ARUN KUMAR S S/O SIVASANKARAN — 16449/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK020274492025

Filing Number

16449/2025

Filing Date

06-Nov-2025

Registration No

16449/2025

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.ARUN KUMAR S S/O SIVASANKARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court (Criminal Case, Section 1, Palanpur) rejected the accused's application for anticipatory bail, holding that the accusations of video obscenity and related charges had sufficient basis. The court found that the accused's conduct regarding obscene video materials and the related allegations warranted proceeding with the case in the magistrate's court rather than granting pre-arrest bail protection. 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. 16449/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court (Criminal Case, Section 1, Palanpur) rejected the accused's application for anticipatory bail, holding that the accusations of video obscenity and related charges had sufficient basis. The court found that the accused's conduct regarding obscene video materials and the related allegations warranted proceeding with the case in the magistrate's court rather than granting pre-arrest bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case