SHREE ANANDMAYI MAHILA CREDIT CO.OPP.SOCIETY LTD. vs GHANCHI SALAMABEN JAKIRBHAI — 931/2025

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

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJBT020185532025

Filing Number

931/2025

Filing Date

18-Nov-2025

Registration No

931/2025

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.GHANCHI SALAMABEN JAKIRBHAI

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 filed the complaint approximately 31 days late, citing ignorance of law and the respondent's promise to repay the amount, but the court found these reasons insufficient under the precedent set in *Pawan Kumar Ralli v/s Maninder Singh Narula*, which requires adequate justification for delay. 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. 931/2025

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 filed the complaint approximately 31 days late, citing ignorance of law and the respondent's promise to repay the amount, but the court found these reasons insufficient under the precedent set in *Pawan Kumar Ralli v/s Maninder Singh Narula*, which requires adequate justification for delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case