RAJESHKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI VASVELIYA PROPWRITER OF UTTAM TRADERS vs HARDIK DINESHBHAI KOTAK Advocate - S J JOSHI — 316/2022

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN090003602022

Filing Number

316/2022

Filing Date

06-Apr-2022

Registration No

316/2022

Registration Date

06-Apr-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANAVADAR

Judge

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

Decision Date

21-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.HARDIK DINESHBHAI KOTAK Advocate - S J JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CC-316/2022 Court Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's (Rajeshkumar Vasveliya's) case against respondent Hardik Dineshbhai Kotak under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent committed fraud or breach of contract regarding a Rs. 5,00,000 check. The court found the petitioner's evidence inconsistent and ruled that the respondent had provided a valid defense demonstrating proper transaction terms. Key Reasoning: The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's testimony about the check's purpose, amount demanded, and bank statements. The respondent's witnesses and documentary evidence were found more credible, establishing that the transaction was legitimate and the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds, not fraudulent intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 27-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 31-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 21-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 28-Oct-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 26-Sep-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 29-Aug-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 07-Aug-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 03-Jul-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 17-Jun-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 15-May-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 25-Apr-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 04-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 15-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 15-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 18-Jan-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 13-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 24-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 11-Sep-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 14-Aug-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 02-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 21-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 15-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 01-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 19-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 15-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 03-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 19-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 30-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 16-May-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

  43. 01-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 16-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 04-Jan-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 21-Nov-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 06-Oct-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 13-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 27-Jul-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  50. 01-Jul-2022

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  51. 06-Jun-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  52. 13-May-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 06-Apr-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 316/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC-316/2022 Court Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's (Rajeshkumar Vasveliya's) case against respondent Hardik Dineshbhai Kotak under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent committed fraud or breach of contract regarding a Rs. 5,00,000 check. The court found the petitioner's evidence inconsistent and ruled that the respondent had provided a valid defense demonstrating proper transaction terms. Key Reasoning: The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's testimony about the check's purpose, amount demanded, and bank statements. The respondent's witnesses and documentary evidence were found more credible, establishing that the transaction was legitimate and the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds, not fraudulent intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case