BHOLENATH FINANCE THOURGH HITESHBHAI GHUSABHAI NAGESHREE vs HANIFBHAI AJITBHAI LULANIYA Advocate - H S DESAI — 141/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN030001812025
Filing Number
141/2025
Filing Date
08-Apr-2025
Registration No
141/2025
Registration Date
08-Apr-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MENDARDA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHOLENATH FINANCE THOURGH HITESHBHAI GHUSABHAI NAGESHREE
Adv. J P JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.HANIFBHAI AJITBHAI LULANIYA Advocate - H S DESAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
The court dismissed the petition filed under Order-10 (likely a procedural order) as the petitioner failed to establish grounds for relief. The judgment indicates that since the petitioner could not adequately substantiate their claims and the respondent's contentions were found valid, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected with directions for proper legal remedies as prescribed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Feb-2026
Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jan-2026
Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Nov-2025
Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Oct-2025
Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jul-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Jun-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-May-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 141/2025
The court dismissed the petition filed under Order-10 (likely a procedural order) as the petitioner failed to establish grounds for relief. The judgment indicates that since the petitioner could not adequately substantiate their claims and the respondent's contentions were found valid, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected with directions for proper legal remedies as prescribed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts