Gokul Babulal Kothari vs Vilas Sukdev Wagh — 60/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3). Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHNS170008742024
e-Filing Number
02-08-2024
Filing Number
714/2024
Filing Date
02-08-2024
Registration No
60/2024
Registration Date
02-08-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Nandgaon
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOKADALAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gokul Babulal Kothari
Adv. Binnar Balkrishna B
Respondent(s)
Vilas Sukdev Wagh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Disposed
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Steps_Unready | |
| 29-01-2026 | Steps_Unready | |
| 24-11-2025 | Steps_Unready | |
| 29-09-2025 | Steps_Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
This is a Marathi language judgment from the National Public Interest Litigation Court (राष्ट्रीय लोक अदालत). While the document is partially legible, the critical decision section contains heavy handwriting and marks that make the specific court order difficult to read with certainty. The judgment appears to address a matter involving court fees and procedural issues, with signatures from the presiding judge and panel members dated 14/03/2026. SKIP — The key reasoning and specific decision are not sufficiently clear due to handwritten annotations and unclear text in the critical portions of the judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Marathi language judgment from the National Public Interest Litigation Court (राष्ट्रीय लोक अदालत). While the document is partially legible, the critical decision section contains heavy handwriting and marks that make the specific court order difficult to read with certainty. The judgment appears to address a matter involving court fees and procedural issues, with signatures from the presiding judge and panel members dated 14/03/2026. SKIP — The key reasoning and specific decision are not sufficiently clear due to handwritten annotations and unclear text in the critical portions of the judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts