TRIVEDI ATUKLUMAR AMARATLAL vs JOSHI BHIKHABHAI JAGANNATH Advocate - J R RATHOD — 866/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 09th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGN040013402019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
866/2019
Filing Date
05-08-2019
Registration No
866/2019
Registration Date
05-08-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANSA
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TRIVEDI ATUKLUMAR AMARATLAL
Adv. B N JANI
Respondent(s)
JOSHI BHIKHABHAI JAGANNATH Advocate - J R RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 13-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 22-12-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 10-11-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed Criminal Case No. 866/2019 (under the Negotiable Instruments Act) for default by the complainant. The case had been pending for 6 years, during which the complainant repeatedly failed to provide the accused's correct address despite multiple adjournments, preventing service of summons and proceeding with trial. The court held that the complainant's negligence and dormant prosecution of the case violated their duty to diligently pursue proceedings, thereby burdening the judiciary and delaying justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed Criminal Case No. 866/2019 (under the Negotiable Instruments Act) for default by the complainant. The case had been pending for 6 years, during which the complainant repeatedly failed to provide the accused's correct address despite multiple adjournments, preventing service of summons and proceeding with trial. The court held that the complainant's negligence and dormant prosecution of the case violated their duty to diligently pursue proceedings, thereby burdening the judiciary and delaying 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