WESTERN PROTEIN PROPRIETOR - NARENDRABHAI THOBHANBHAI DADHANIYA vs GOKUL TRADERS PROPRIETOR - JAGDISHCNAHDRA HARJIVANDAS UNDAKAT Advocate - S V DATTA — 51/2024
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 10th April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJJN210010242024
Filing Number
51/2024
Filing Date
24-10-2024
Registration No
51/2024
Registration Date
24-10-2024
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-KESHOD
Judge
1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
WESTERN PROTEIN PROPRIETOR - NARENDRABHAI THOBHANBHAI DADHANIYA
Adv. N R KALOLA
Respondent(s)
GOKUL TRADERS PROPRIETOR - JAGDISHCNAHDRA HARJIVANDAS UNDAKAT Advocate - S V DATTA
Government of Gujarat
Adv. A M PAREKH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 23-01-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY Case 51/2024 | Fosjdari Appil No. 51/2024 Petitioner: Western Protein Proprietor - Narendrabhai Thobhanbhai Dadhaniya Respondent: Gokul Traders Proprietor - Jagdishchandra Harjivandas Undakat & Government of Gujarat --- Court's Decision The appellate court set aside the trial court's conviction of the appellant under the Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 138, and acquitted him. The court found that the complainant failed to establish the requisite conditions for Section 138 prosecution and that the cheque was given as security, not for debt discharge as required by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY Case 51/2024 | Fosjdari Appil No. 51/2024 Petitioner: Western Protein Proprietor - Narendrabhai Thobhanbhai Dadhaniya Respondent: Gokul Traders Proprietor - Jagdishchandra Harjivandas Undakat & Government of Gujarat --- Court's Decision The appellate court set aside the trial court's conviction of the appellant under the Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 138, and acquitted him. The court found that the complainant failed to establish the requisite conditions for Section 138 prosecution and that the cheque was given as security, not for debt discharge as required by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts