ARVINDKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL vs CHAUHAN VAJESINH AMARSINH Advocate - P K MAKWANA — 691/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 09th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060009032025
Filing Number
691/2025
Filing Date
07-08-2025
Registration No
691/2025
Registration Date
07-08-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARVINDKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL
Adv. P K BHARVAD
Respondent(s)
CHAUHAN VAJESINH AMARSINH Advocate - P K MAKWANA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 02-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 17-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 691-2025 Court Decision: The court convicted defendant Chauhan Vajesinh Amarsinh under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 (bounced check offense) and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment plus compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant. The court found that the accused received Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant as a hand-received loan, issued a cheque as repayment security, but the cheque returned due to insufficient funds and the accused failed to repay despite statutory notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 691-2025 Court Decision: The court convicted defendant Chauhan Vajesinh Amarsinh under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 (bounced check offense) and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment plus compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant. The court found that the accused received Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant as a hand-received loan, issued a cheque as repayment security, but the cheque returned due to insufficient funds and the accused failed to repay despite statutory notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts