M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs HARISH CHAND GOUR C/O NATWAR LAL GOUR — 18520/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK020313702025

Filing Number

18520/2025

Filing Date

23-Dec-2025

Registration No

18520/2025

Registration Date

23-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.HARISH CHAND GOUR C/O NATWAR LAL GOUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court decided to reject the petition and dismissed the case, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the video evidence presented. The court reasoned that since all necessary relationships and proper procedures were maintained in the original case, proceeding further was not warranted, and the case was directed to be transferred back to the lower court with video evidence fees as applicable. 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. 31-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 23-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18520/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court decided to reject the petition and dismissed the case, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the video evidence presented. The court reasoned that since all necessary relationships and proper procedures were maintained in the original case, proceeding further was not warranted, and the case was directed to be transferred back to the lower court with video evidence fees as applicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case