SHRI RAM FAINNACE LTD DEESA vs PRAKASH AMARAT KUMBHAR — 32/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CR EN - CRIMINAL ENQUIRY

CNR: GJBK040004462026

Filing Number

32/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

32/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEESA

Judge

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

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 06-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI RAM FAINNACE LTD DEESA

    Adv. B J JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASH AMARAT KUMBHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court admitted the cheque dishonor complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and issued process against the accused, finding prima facie evidence of dishonored cheque, statutory notice non-compliance, and territorial jurisdiction based on the bank account location within court jurisdiction. The court held that the special procedure under NI Act Section 142 applies, not general BNSS provisions, and therefore no pre-cognizance notice to the accused was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Complainant

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

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 32/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court admitted the cheque dishonor complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and issued process against the accused, finding prima facie evidence of dishonored cheque, statutory notice non-compliance, and territorial jurisdiction based on the bank account location within court jurisdiction. The court held that the special procedure under NI Act Section 142 applies, not general BNSS provisions, and therefore no pre-cognizance notice to the accused was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case