GAURAVBHAI DHIRUBHAI VASAVA BRANCH COLLECTION MANAGER OF SHRI RAM FINANCE LIMITED NETRANG BRANCH vs SHYAMKUMAR HARIVADAN PADARIA Advocate - R T PRAJAPATI — 3204/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030063092023

Filing Number

3204/2023

Filing Date

24-Jul-2023

Registration No

3204/2023

Registration Date

24-Jul-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAURAVBHAI DHIRUBHAI VASAVA BRANCH COLLECTION MANAGER OF SHRI RAM FINANCE LIMITED NETRANG BRANCH

    Adv. N R PANCHAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHYAMKUMAR HARIVADAN PADARIA Advocate - R T PRAJAPATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 3204/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the respondent (Shyamkumar Harivadan Padaria) of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138. The court found that the petitioner (Shri Ram Finance Limited) failed to prove essential ingredients of the offense, particularly regarding consideration and debt. The respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption by presenting compelling evidence and circumstances showing non-existence of liability. Key Reasoning: Under Section 138 NI Act, presumptions favoring the complainant are rebuttable. The accused need not prove their defense beyond reasonable doubt but must present facts and circumstances making non-existence of consideration/debt probable. Here, the respondent adequately demonstrated through evidence that the loan transaction circumstances and vehicle dealings negated the presumed liability, shifting the burden back to the complainant who could not substantiate the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 15-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 22-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 04-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 14-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 07-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 16-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 01-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 19-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 22-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 30-May-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 28-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 03-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 03-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 14-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 07-Feb-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  25. 21-Jan-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  26. 10-Dec-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  27. 02-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  28. 14-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  29. 03-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  30. 16-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  31. 04-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  32. 30-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  33. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  34. 13-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  35. 02-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  36. 04-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  37. 16-Oct-2023

    Plea

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  38. 05-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 24-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3204/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 3204/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the respondent (Shyamkumar Harivadan Padaria) of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138. The court found that the petitioner (Shri Ram Finance Limited) failed to prove essential ingredients of the offense, particularly regarding consideration and debt. The respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption by presenting compelling evidence and circumstances showing non-existence of liability. Key Reasoning: Under Section 138 NI Act, presumptions favoring the complainant are rebuttable. The accused need not prove their defense beyond reasonable doubt but must present facts and circumstances making non-existence of consideration/debt probable. Here, the respondent adequately demonstrated through evidence that the loan transaction circumstances and vehicle dealings negated the presumed liability, shifting the burden back to the complainant who could not substantiate the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case