ANKURBHAI UMESHCHANDRA CHAUHAN POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SHREE RAM FINANCE LTD vs HASMITABEN VIJAYKUMAR SOLANKI Advocate - V R VARIA — 1983/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM040027732025
Filing Number
1983/2025
Filing Date
11-08-2025
Registration No
1983/2025
Registration Date
13-08-2025
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)
ANKURBHAI UMESHCHANDRA CHAUHAN POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SHREE RAM FINANCE LTD
Adv. B M MAKARANI
Respondent(s)
HASMITABEN VIJAYKUMAR SOLANKI Advocate - V R VARIA
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 |
| 12-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 10-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the petition filed under Order 20 of the CPC, holding that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for the case to proceed further. The court also acquitted the respondent, rejecting the allegations against them. Considering the respondent's financial circumstances and citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H, the court declined to direct deposit of any amount in legal services authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the petition filed under Order 20 of the CPC, holding that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for the case to proceed further. The court also acquitted the respondent, rejecting the allegations against them. Considering the respondent's financial circumstances and citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H, the court declined to direct deposit of any amount in legal services authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts