HITESHBHAI MAGANLAL JOSHI vs HARDIKBHAI NITINBHAI PATANI Advocate - G N SORTHIA — 95/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 05th June 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW060001562025

Case disposed

Filing Number

95/2025

Filing Date

12-02-2025

Registration No

95/2025

Registration Date

12-02-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, BHANVAD

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

05th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

HITESHBHAI MAGANLAL JOSHI

Adv. N M MAKVANA

Respondent(s)

HARDIKBHAI NITINBHAI PATANI Advocate - G N SORTHIA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

05-06-2026

Disposed

07-05-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

15-04-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

14-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

28-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

05-06-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 95/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhanvad convicted the accused (Hardikbhai Nitinbhai Patani) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonoring a cheque worth ₹2,00,000. The court found that the accused drew a cheque that was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving a demand notice, and provided no credible defense to rebut the statutory presumption of debt. Sentencing: One year simple imprisonment, ₹2,00,000 compensation to the complainant, and forfeiture of property/bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 95/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhanvad convicted the accused (Hardikbhai Nitinbhai Patani) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonoring a cheque worth ₹2,00,000. The court found that the accused drew a cheque that was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving a demand notice, and provided no credible defense to rebut the statutory presumption of debt. Sentencing: One year simple imprisonment, ₹2,00,000 compensation to the complainant, and forfeiture of property/bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, BHANVAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case