GHANSHYAMBHAI BHOJABHAI GAMARA vs GAU KRUPA MILK PRODUCER COMPANY — 222/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSN010004402026

Filing Number

222/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

222/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

3-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GHANSHYAMBHAI BHOJABHAI GAMARA

    Adv. K V SHAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GAU KRUPA MILK PRODUCER COMPANY

  2. 2.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Summary The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, condoned a 163-day delay in filing a criminal appeal by Ghansyambhai Bhojabhai Gamara, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with Rs. 71,300 compensation. The court found the delay justified due to the applicant's absence during judgment pronouncement, his lack of legal knowledge, and family hardship, prioritizing substantial justice over technical procedural requirements. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2,500 with the District Legal Services Authority as a condition to proceed with the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 222/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, condoned a 163-day delay in filing a criminal appeal by Ghansyambhai Bhojabhai Gamara, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with Rs. 71,300 compensation. The court found the delay justified due to the applicant's absence during judgment pronouncement, his lack of legal knowledge, and family hardship, prioritizing substantial justice over technical procedural requirements. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2,500 with the District Legal Services Authority as a condition to proceed with the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case