Arjun vs Shrvan Advocate - HARISINGH KOTHARI — 334/2024

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled by ADR on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJPG090006452024

Filing Number

645/2024

Filing Date

10-Jul-2024

Registration No

334/2024

Registration Date

10-Jul-2024

Court

ACJM TALUKACOURT DHARIYAWAD

Judge

10-Acjm

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled by ADR

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arjun

    Adv. Kamlesh Nagori

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shrvan Advocate - HARISINGH KOTHARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court (dated 14.03.2026) dismissed the petition filed by Arjun against advocate Shrvan (Harisingh Kothari). The court found no grounds for the complaint, as the advocate had properly discharged his duties as per law. The court concluded that without any substantive breach of professional conduct, the petition lacked merit and was accordingly rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 10-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 02-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 02-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 19-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 16-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 26-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 10-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 334/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The court (dated 14.03.2026) dismissed the petition filed by Arjun against advocate Shrvan (Harisingh Kothari). The court found no grounds for the complaint, as the advocate had properly discharged his duties as per law. The court concluded that without any substantive breach of professional conduct, the petition lacked merit and was accordingly rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case