SHUBH LABH FINANCE PROP BALBHADRASINH JAGDEVSINH DABHI vs MAYURDVAJSINH MAHESHKUMAR RAHEVAR Advocate - N A PANDYA — 7798/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSK020100632025
Filing Number
7798/2025
Filing Date
12-Jun-2025
Registration No
7798/2025
Registration Date
12-Jun-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT HIMATNAGAR
Judge
2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 12-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHUBH LABH FINANCE PROP BALBHADRASINH JAGDEVSINH DABHI
Adv. A B BHAVSAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.MAYURDVAJSINH MAHESHKUMAR RAHEVAR Advocate - N A PANDYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court rejected the accused's plea to pursue a video prosecution under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with remote testimony. The court noted that under Section 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the accused was acquitted of the charges and the case was dismissed accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Lok Adalat
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
28-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
03-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
01-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
25-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Complainant
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
10-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 7798/2025
The court rejected the accused's plea to pursue a video prosecution under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with remote testimony. The court noted that under Section 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the accused was acquitted of the charges and the case was dismissed accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts