RAJESHKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI VASVELIYA PROPWRITER OF UTTAM TRADERS vs HARDIKBHAI DINESHBHAI KOTAK Advocate - S J JOSHI — 315/2022

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN090003592022

Filing Number

315/2022

Filing Date

06-Apr-2022

Registration No

315/2022

Registration Date

06-Apr-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANAVADAR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJESHKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI VASVELIYA PROPWRITER OF UTTAM TRADERS

    Adv. G L ZALAVADIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARDIKBHAI DINESHBHAI KOTAK Advocate - S J JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: CC-315/2022 Case: Rajeshkumar Mansukhbhai Vasveliya (Petitioner/Prop. Writer of Uttam Traders) vs. Hardikbhai Dineshbhai Kotak (Respondent) Court Decision: The court found the respondent guilty under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 (dishonored cheque). The petitioner sold buffalo to the respondent valued at ₹5,40,000, and the respondent issued three cheques which were dishonored due to "payment stopped by drawer" and signature mismatch reasons. The court rejected the respondent's defense claiming lack of business knowledge and non-receipt of cheques, finding the petitioner established proper demand notice procedures. The respondent was sentenced to criminal prosecution under CrPC Section 255(1) with bond requirement; bail bond of ₹5,000 and personal recognizance of ₹5,000 imposed; bail bonds to remain valid for six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 31-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 01-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 21-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 28-Oct-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 26-Sep-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 29-Aug-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 07-Aug-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 03-Jul-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 17-Jun-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 15-May-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 25-Apr-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 04-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 15-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 15-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 18-Jan-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 13-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 24-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 11-Sep-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 14-Aug-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 02-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 21-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 15-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 01-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 19-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 15-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 03-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 19-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 30-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 16-May-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

  41. 01-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 16-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 04-Jan-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 21-Nov-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 06-Oct-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 13-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 27-Jul-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 01-Jul-2022

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 06-Jun-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  50. 13-May-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  51. 06-Apr-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 315/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC-315/2022 Case: Rajeshkumar Mansukhbhai Vasveliya (Petitioner/Prop. Writer of Uttam Traders) vs. Hardikbhai Dineshbhai Kotak (Respondent) Court Decision: The court found the respondent guilty under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 (dishonored cheque). The petitioner sold buffalo to the respondent valued at ₹5,40,000, and the respondent issued three cheques which were dishonored due to "payment stopped by drawer" and signature mismatch reasons. The court rejected the respondent's defense claiming lack of business knowledge and non-receipt of cheques, finding the petitioner established proper demand notice procedures. The respondent was sentenced to criminal prosecution under CrPC Section 255(1) with bond requirement; bail bond of ₹5,000 and personal recognizance of ₹5,000 imposed; bail bonds to remain valid for six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case