KRISHNA COLOUR CHEM - PARESHBHAI ANANTRAI BOSAMIYA C.A.18000000 vs LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED — 9874/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR020120932025
Filing Number
9874/2025
Filing Date
10-Dec-2025
Registration No
9874/2025
Registration Date
10-Dec-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT, MORBI
Judge
7-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 05-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KRISHNA COLOUR CHEM - PARESHBHAI ANANTRAI BOSAMIYA C.A.18000000
Adv. C D KARIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
-
2.HITESH BABULAL DETROJA - LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LTD.
-
3.DIMPALBEN ANILBHAI DETROJA -LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
-
4.ANILKUMAR BABULAL DETROJA DIRECTOR OF LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
-
5.JITENDRABHAI CHANDULAL LAKHTARIYA - LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
-
6.CHIRAG MUKESHBHAI HIRANI -LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
-
7.UMANGKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI JAGODANA - LEXUS GRANITO INDIA LIMITED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary In Civil Case No. 9874/2025, the court decided that the defendant's Video Purchase Order No. 08 was wrongly rejected, and the defendant is entitled to proper compensation for the work completed. The court held that since the work was properly executed and no further work is pending, the defendant should be awarded fees/compensation from the Video Purchase Order. The judgment was dated 14/03/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Mar-2026
Lok Adalat
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 9874/2025
Summary In Civil Case No. 9874/2025, the court decided that the defendant's Video Purchase Order No. 08 was wrongly rejected, and the defendant is entitled to proper compensation for the work completed. The court held that since the work was properly executed and no further work is pending, the defendant should be awarded fees/compensation from the Video Purchase Order. The judgment was dated 14/03/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts