Axis Bank Ltd( Aurangabad Bihar Branch) Through Its Branch Head Uttam Kumar Singh vs The State of Gujarat Advocate - PP — 913/2025
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBT010022552025
Filing Number
913/2025
Filing Date
29-Dec-2025
Registration No
913/2025
Registration Date
29-Dec-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT, BOTAD
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Axis Bank Ltd( Aurangabad Bihar Branch) Through Its Branch Head Uttam Kumar Singh
Adv. V G VADODARIA
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Gujarat Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor)
-
2.Goti Bhaunik Jerambhai
Adv. SERVED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 913/2025 The Sessions Judge, Botad allowed Axis Bank Ltd's application to condone a 137-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application against a magistrate's order dated 15.05.2025. The court found the applicant's reasons for delay to be genuine and sufficient, applying the principle that acceptability of explanation—not delay length—is the decisive criterion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court prioritized substantial justice over technical procedural grounds, directing the registry to register the revision application and proceed further according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
07-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 913/2025
Case Summary: 913/2025 The Sessions Judge, Botad allowed Axis Bank Ltd's application to condone a 137-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application against a magistrate's order dated 15.05.2025. The court found the applicant's reasons for delay to be genuine and sufficient, applying the principle that acceptability of explanation—not delay length—is the decisive criterion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court prioritized substantial justice over technical procedural grounds, directing the registry to register the revision application and proceed further according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts