SUMERSINH RICHHPALSINH - BHAGVATI TRADERS vs ACUTE CERAMIC PVT LTD - JAYANTILAL MEDHJIBHAI VANSJALIYA Advocate - R A PATEL — 161/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMR010035572025
Filing Number
161/2025
Filing Date
19-Dec-2025
Registration No
161/2025
Registration Date
19-Dec-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT,MORBI
Judge
2-Principal District And Sessions Judge
Last updated 05-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUMERSINH RICHHPALSINH - BHAGVATI TRADERS
Adv. J D AGECHANIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.ACUTE CERAMIC PVT LTD - JAYANTILAL MEDHJIBHAI VANSJALIYA Advocate - R A PATEL
Case History
-
18-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
27-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District And Sessions Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District And Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District And Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District And Sessions Judge
-
30-Dec-2025
OrderView PDF
Case Summary Criminal Appeal No. 161/2025 - Morbi Court Order The appellant's conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 (for issuing a dishonored check) have been stayed pending the final appeal decision. The appellant has been granted bail of ₹15,000 with surety and an equal personal bond, on conditions including court attendance, not leaving India without permission, and not intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 161/2025
Case Summary Criminal Appeal No. 161/2025 - Morbi Court Order The appellant's conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 (for issuing a dishonored check) have been stayed pending the final appeal decision. The appellant has been granted bail of ₹15,000 with surety and an equal personal bond, on conditions including court attendance, not leaving India without permission, and not intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts