VIRABHAI PARBAT VALA vs DILIPBHAI KARSAN RAM Advocate - R B PANDIT — 78/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJGS010006052025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
78/2025
Filing Date
28-05-2025
Registration No
78/2025
Registration Date
28-05-2025
Court
District Court, Veraval
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIRABHAI PARBAT VALA
Adv. M H VALA
Respondent(s)
DILIPBHAI KARSAN RAM Advocate - R B PANDIT
State of Gujarat
Adv. K D VALA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 12-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 22-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District and Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, finding that the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,80,000 through the dishonored cheques and supporting documentary evidence. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the cheques were mere security, ruling that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and confirmed the sentence of 8 months simple imprisonment and compensation payment of Rs. 1,80,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District and Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, finding that the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,80,000 through the dishonored cheques and supporting documentary evidence. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the cheques were mere security, ruling that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and confirmed the sentence of 8 months simple imprisonment and compensation payment of Rs. 1,80,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts