STATE BANK OF INDIA vs HARDASBHAI GORDHANBHAI MONPARA Advocate - H S HIRANI — 30/2025
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 06th March 2026.
CMA DC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - DISTRICT COURT
CNR: GJJN200005512025
Filing Number
30/2025
Filing Date
20-Dec-2025
Registration No
30/2025
Registration Date
20-Dec-2025
Court
Additional Court, Visavadar
Judge
1-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 15-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE BANK OF INDIA
Adv. D M SHAH
Respondent(s)
-
1.HARDASBHAI GORDHANBHAI MONPARA Advocate - H S HIRANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The 4th Additional District Judge, Visavadar disallowed State Bank of India's application seeking condonation of 811 days delay in filing an appeal against a loan recovery suit dismissal. The court found that SBI's explanation—non-communication from its advocate and officer transfer—was unsatisfactory, as an institutional litigant must maintain vigilant records and administrative systems to track pending cases. The court also noted SBI made contradictory statements, having earlier filed a related application in May 2024, undermining its claim of learning about the judgment only in November 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Order
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
13-Jan-2026
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 30/2025
Summary The 4th Additional District Judge, Visavadar disallowed State Bank of India's application seeking condonation of 811 days delay in filing an appeal against a loan recovery suit dismissal. The court found that SBI's explanation—non-communication from its advocate and officer transfer—was unsatisfactory, as an institutional litigant must maintain vigilant records and administrative systems to track pending cases. The court also noted SBI made contradictory statements, having earlier filed a related application in May 2024, undermining its claim of learning about the judgment only in November 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts