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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN090003602022
Filing Number
316/2022
Filing Date
06-04-2022
Registration No
316/2022
Registration Date
06-04-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANAVADAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJESHKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI VASVELIYA PROPWRITER OF UTTAM TRADERS
Adv. G L ZALAVADIYA
Respondent(s)
HARDIK DINESHBHAI KOTAK Advocate - S J JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts