NIMESH AGRAWAL PROPRIETOR OF HARY INDUSTRIES vs SHREEJI ENTERPRISE CHINTAN H GANDHI Advocate - A P MEHTA — 88/2024

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Status: Final Hearing. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.

Final Hearing Next hearing 19-May-2026

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJAH010037362024

Filing Number

88/2024

Filing Date

02-May-2024

Registration No

88/2024

Registration Date

02-May-2024

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

4-9th Addl District Judge

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIMESH AGRAWAL PROPRIETOR OF HARY INDUSTRIES

    Adv. S D BHAVSAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHREEJI ENTERPRISE CHINTAN H GANDHI Advocate - A P MEHTA

  2. 2.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. P M TRIVEDI

Case History

  1. 19-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  3. 03-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary Application Dismissed. The court rejected the complainant's request to file a Section 65(B) Evidence Act certificate at the appellate stage in a Negotiable Instrument Act case. The court held that the complainant had ample opportunity to produce the certificate during trial (filed 2018, decided 2024) but failed to do so, and filing it only after appellate arguments is an impermissible attempt to fill gaps at a late stage. Applying Supreme Court precedent, additional evidence is permitted only when a party was prevented from presenting it despite due diligence or facts emerged later—neither applied here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 04-Feb-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Final Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  10. 03-Jan-2026

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  11. 20-Dec-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  12. 15-Nov-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  13. 10-Oct-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  14. 20-Sep-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  15. 30-Aug-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  16. 02-Aug-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  17. 15-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  18. 11-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  19. 03-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  20. 10-Jun-2025

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  21. 14-May-2025

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  22. 03-Apr-2025

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  23. 01-Mar-2025

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  24. 13-Feb-2025

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  25. 23-Dec-2024

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  26. 18-Nov-2024

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  27. 07-Oct-2024

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  28. 12-Sep-2024

    Final Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  29. 29-Aug-2024

    For R&P

    5th Addl District Judge

  30. 24-Jul-2024

    Process To Respondents

    5th Addl District Judge

  31. 03-Jul-2024

    Process To Respondents

    5th Addl District Judge

  32. 05-Jun-2024

    Process To Respondents

    6th Addl District Judge

  33. 22-May-2024

    Process To Respondents

    7th Addl District Judge

  34. 04-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 02-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 88/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Application Dismissed. The court rejected the complainant's request to file a Section 65(B) Evidence Act certificate at the appellate stage in a Negotiable Instrument Act case. The court held that the complainant had ample opportunity to produce the certificate during trial (filed 2018, decided 2024) but failed to do so, and filing it only after appellate arguments is an impermissible attempt to fill gaps at a late stage. Applying Supreme Court precedent, additional evidence is permitted only when a party was prevented from presenting it despite due diligence or facts emerged later—neither applied here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case