GAUTAMBHAI KESHAVBHAI KANTIYA vs MS CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY THROUGH MEHUL POPATBHAI ZANZMERA — 469/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJBN010012462026

Filing Number

469/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

469/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAUTAMBHAI KESHAVBHAI KANTIYA

    Adv. R V PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MS CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY THROUGH MEHUL POPATBHAI ZANZMERA

  2. 2.STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DGP BHAVNAGAR

    Adv. APP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar allowed petitioner Gautambhai Keshavbhai Kantiya's application seeking condonation of one year and eight days delay in filing an appeal against his conviction dated 04.03.2025. The court found the petitioner's explanation reasonable and bona fide—that family bereavement prevented his appearance, resulting in an ex-parte conviction of which he learned only later. Applying a justice-oriented approach and citing precedent that technical grounds should not defeat legitimate rights to legal redress, the court permitted the appeal to proceed on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 469/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar allowed petitioner Gautambhai Keshavbhai Kantiya's application seeking condonation of one year and eight days delay in filing an appeal against his conviction dated 04.03.2025. The court found the petitioner's explanation reasonable and bona fide—that family bereavement prevented his appearance, resulting in an ex-parte conviction of which he learned only later. Applying a justice-oriented approach and citing precedent that technical grounds should not defeat legitimate rights to legal redress, the court permitted the appeal to proceed on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case