DIPAKBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PARMAR vs PRO. OF ARJUN MANGO SUPPLYERS RAMESHKUMAR VITHALBHAI JARSARNIYA — 110/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION

CNR: GJGS010003132026

Filing Number

110/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

110/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

District Court, Veraval

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIPAKBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. D M VYAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRO. OF ARJUN MANGO SUPPLYERS RAMESHKUMAR VITHALBHAI JARSARNIYA

  2. 2.State of Gujarat

    Adv. K D VALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Summary The Sessions Court of Gir Somnath granted the appellant's application to condone an 84-day delay in filing a criminal appeal under the Limitation Act. The court found that the appellant was not present when the trial court's conviction order was pronounced, thus could not have known of the judgment immediately, and there was no other cause for the delay. Applying the principle established in the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Master Katiji, the court allowed the delayed appeal to be filed in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 110/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court of Gir Somnath granted the appellant's application to condone an 84-day delay in filing a criminal appeal under the Limitation Act. The court found that the appellant was not present when the trial court's conviction order was pronounced, thus could not have known of the judgment immediately, and there was no other cause for the delay. Applying the principle established in the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Master Katiji, the court allowed the delayed appeal to be filed in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case