VARUNKUMAR NAVINCHANDRA PARIKH ON BEHALF OF THE HALOL URBAN CO OP BANK LIMITED vs HARISHBHAI PRAFULBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - K M PARMAR — 1252/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM040019162025
Filing Number
1252/2025
Filing Date
07-07-2025
Registration No
1252/2025
Registration Date
07-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VARUNKUMAR NAVINCHANDRA PARIKH ON BEHALF OF THE HALOL URBAN CO OP BANK LIMITED
Adv. H J KASSOWAL
Respondent(s)
HARISHBHAI PRAFULBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - K M PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 26-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 08-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 05-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C.No.1252/2025 The Halol Urban Co-op Bank Limited challenged proceedings under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, alleging the case cannot proceed against the accused without proper legal authorization. The court dismissed the petition, holding the case can proceed and acquitting the accused, while declining to deposit any amount in a legal services authority as per Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, deeming such deposit unjustified given the accused's financial circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C.No.1252/2025 The Halol Urban Co-op Bank Limited challenged proceedings under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, alleging the case cannot proceed against the accused without proper legal authorization. The court dismissed the petition, holding the case can proceed and acquitting the accused, while declining to deposit any amount in a legal services authority as per Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, deeming such deposit unjustified given the accused's financial circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts