NARESHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT vs SHALIBHADR FINANCE LIMITED MANAGER CHETAN SUKHADEV SHARMA Advocate - S M VAHORA — 204/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSR190003072026

Filing Number

204/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

204/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI

Judge

1-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARESHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT

    Adv. D G CHAUDHARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHALIBHADR FINANCE LIMITED MANAGER CHETAN SUKHADEV SHARMA Advocate - S M VAHORA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    The court granted the petitioner Nareshbhai Babuhai Gamit's application for condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the delay was caused by his advocate's failure to inform him of the trial court's order imposing two years rigorous imprisonment. The court found no prejudice to the respondent (Shalibhadra Finance Ltd.) and permitted the criminal appeal to proceed, holding that technical grounds should not override substantial justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 204/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the petitioner Nareshbhai Babuhai Gamit's application for condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the delay was caused by his advocate's failure to inform him of the trial court's order imposing two years rigorous imprisonment. The court found no prejudice to the respondent (Shalibhadra Finance Ltd.) and permitted the criminal appeal to proceed, holding that technical grounds should not override substantial justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case