SHREE ANANDMAYI MAHILA CREDIT CO.OPP.SOCIETY LTD. vs VADIYA YASMINBEN KADARBHAI — 930/2025

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJBT020185522025

Filing Number

930/2025

Filing Date

18-Nov-2025

Registration No

930/2025

Registration Date

18-Nov-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT, BOTAD

Judge

4-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHREE ANANDMAYI MAHILA CREDIT CO.OPP.SOCIETY LTD.

    Adv. M M CHAUHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VADIYA YASMINBEN KADARBHAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an FIR under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138. The petitioner sought to condone a 35-day delay, citing lack of legal knowledge, but the court found the explanation insufficient and not backed by concrete facts as required under precedent. The court dismissed the application, holding that reasonable and justified grounds for the delay were not established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing P.P.

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Notice To Opponents

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Notice To Opponents

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 18-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 930/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an FIR under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138. The petitioner sought to condone a 35-day delay, citing lack of legal knowledge, but the court found the explanation insufficient and not backed by concrete facts as required under precedent. The court dismissed the application, holding that reasonable and justified grounds for the delay were not established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case