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.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBN010012462026
Filing Number
469/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
469/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GAUTAMBHAI KESHAVBHAI KANTIYA
Adv. R V PARMAR
Respondent(s)
MS CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY THROUGH MEHUL POPATBHAI ZANZMERA
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DGP BHAVNAGAR
Adv. APP
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts