SHITALBEN VIKRAMSINH MANDOLA vs STATE OF GUJARAT — 380/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 141. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

MACMA - MAC MISC. APPLICATION

CNR: GJKH010010372026

Filing Number

380/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

380/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 141

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHITALBEN VIKRAMSINH MANDOLA

    Adv. P J VYAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nadiad allowed Shitalben Vikramsinh Mandola's application to sue as an indigent person (in forma pauperis) under Order-33, Rule-1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court found no cogent evidence from the State of Gujarat to disprove the applicant's indigent status and permitted her to file a motor accident compensation claim without paying court fees upfront; fees would be recovered after adjudication as the first charge on the decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 380/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nadiad allowed Shitalben Vikramsinh Mandola's application to sue as an indigent person (in forma pauperis) under Order-33, Rule-1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court found no cogent evidence from the State of Gujarat to disprove the applicant's indigent status and permitted her to file a motor accident compensation claim without paying court fees upfront; fees would be recovered after adjudication as the first charge on the decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case