ANILGIRI CHANDUGIRI GOSWAMI vs LALABHAI BABUBHAI VADI Advocate - K M CHAUHAN — 599/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 24th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR070008232025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
599/2025
Filing Date
19-04-2025
Registration No
599/2025
Registration Date
19-04-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, BAYAD
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ANILGIRI CHANDUGIRI GOSWAMI
Adv. S R BALOCH
Respondent(s)
LALABHAI BABUBHAI VADI Advocate - K M CHAUHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
For Arguement of Asscused
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 15-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-04-2026 | For Arguement of Asscused | |
| 23-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 12-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Bayad Court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of ₹1,00,000 that was dishonored. The court found that the complainant (plaintiff) had established all essential elements: a valid cheque was issued for lawful consideration, it was returned due to insufficient funds, and proper legal notice was served. Sentencing the accused to one year imprisonment and ordering compensation of ₹1,00,000 to the complainant, the court emphasized that the law applies equally to all and misconduct cannot evade justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Bayad Court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of ₹1,00,000 that was dishonored. The court found that the complainant (plaintiff) had established all essential elements: a valid cheque was issued for lawful consideration, it was returned due to insufficient funds, and proper legal notice was served. Sentencing the accused to one year imprisonment and ordering compensation of ₹1,00,000 to the complainant, the court emphasized that the law applies equally to all and misconduct cannot evade justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts