GOKUL SNACKS PVT LTD THROUGH PRATIK CHANDUBHAI SOJITRA vs VASUDEV RAGHUBHAI MADHAVI PROP. CHAMUNDA SELES Advocate - Z A KAZI — 1/2025
Case under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th April 2026.
COMM CS - COMMERCIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMR040000022025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1/2025
Filing Date
01-01-2025
Registration No
1/2025
Registration Date
01-01-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, WANKANER
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOKUL SNACKS PVT LTD THROUGH PRATIK CHANDUBHAI SOJITRA
Adv. G R THAKER
Respondent(s)
VASUDEV RAGHUBHAI MADHAVI PROP. CHAMUNDA SELES Advocate - Z A KAZI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 26-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 29-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff Gokul Snacks Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for Rs. 4,07,846 against the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove its case regarding the advance commission amount allegedly paid to the defendant against a dealership agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence lacked proper documentation, invoices, and clarity regarding dates and amounts of the alleged advance commission payments, and therefore could not establish the defendant's liability to repay the claimed amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff Gokul Snacks Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for Rs. 4,07,846 against the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove its case regarding the advance commission amount allegedly paid to the defendant against a dealership agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence lacked proper documentation, invoices, and clarity regarding dates and amounts of the alleged advance commission payments, and therefore could not establish the defendant's liability to repay the claimed amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts