M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs KAVITA TOMAR W/O GAURAV KUMAR — 18089/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK020304852025

Filing Number

18089/2025

Filing Date

15-Dec-2025

Registration No

18089/2025

Registration Date

15-Dec-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.KAVITA TOMAR W/O GAURAV KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court (Criminal Case No. 1 decided by Judge A.R. Trivedi at Palanpur) rejected the anticipatory bail application after finding that the accused's involvement in the alleged offense appears credible based on the video evidence and witness statements. The court ordered that the accused should surrender before the court, and rejected the request to continue proceedings without arrest, instead directing the case to proceed in the public court with the accused in custody. 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. 17-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 15-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18089/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court (Criminal Case No. 1 decided by Judge A.R. Trivedi at Palanpur) rejected the anticipatory bail application after finding that the accused's involvement in the alleged offense appears credible based on the video evidence and witness statements. The court ordered that the accused should surrender before the court, and rejected the request to continue proceedings without arrest, instead directing the case to proceed in the public court with the accused in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case