SURESHBHAI ARJANBHAI DHRANGA PARTNER OF SHIVAM SALES CORPORATION MANAVADAR vs PARASBHAI KISHORBHAI GOTHI Advocate - M B MUCHHAR — 44/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN090000592022
Filing Number
44/2022
Filing Date
05-02-2022
Registration No
44/2022
Registration Date
05-02-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANAVADAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SURESHBHAI ARJANBHAI DHRANGA PARTNER OF SHIVAM SALES CORPORATION MANAVADAR
Adv. S.K.PANDYA
Respondent(s)
PARASBHAI KISHORBHAI GOTHI Advocate - M B MUCHHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 20-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 29-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Manawar First Class Magistrate Court convicted the accused Gohi Pasarabi Kishorbai under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 for dishonoring a check worth ₹53,000. The court sentenced the accused to two years imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,06,000 (double the check amount), finding that the accused had received the check from the complainant as payment for goods but failed to provide sufficient funds in their bank account when the check was presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Manawar First Class Magistrate Court convicted the accused Gohi Pasarabi Kishorbai under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 for dishonoring a check worth ₹53,000. The court sentenced the accused to two years imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,06,000 (double the check amount), finding that the accused had received the check from the complainant as payment for goods but failed to provide sufficient funds in their bank account when the check was presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts