SAURASHTRA NAGARIK SHARAFI SAHKARI MANDALI LIMI. BAGASARA-BHESAN BRANCH vs RATILAL MOHANBHAI RAKHOLIYA — 47/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN120000802026

Filing Number

47/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

47/2026

Registration Date

28-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VISAVADAR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAURASHTRA NAGARIK SHARAFI SAHKARI MANDALI LIMI. BAGASARA-BHESAN BRANCH

    Adv. K B JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RATILAL MOHANBHAI RAKHOLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Gujarat court dismissed a criminal case (Visavdar GJ01522) dated March 14, 2026, finding no grounds to proceed against the accused after the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case regarding criminal charges. The court ordered that since the accused had already paid the disputed amount and there was insufficient evidence, the case should be closed with costs imposed on the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 47/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat court dismissed a criminal case (Visavdar GJ01522) dated March 14, 2026, finding no grounds to proceed against the accused after the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case regarding criminal charges. The court ordered that since the accused had already paid the disputed amount and there was insufficient evidence, the case should be closed with costs imposed on the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case