SHIVAM FINANCE - PROPRIETOR - ILESHKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI SOLANKI vs CHANDRESH BHAILALBHAI PATEL — 1004/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH020012722023

Filing Number

1004/2023

Filing Date

03-Mar-2023

Registration No

1004/2023

Registration Date

03-Mar-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

5-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHIVAM FINANCE - PROPRIETOR - ILESHKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI SOLANKI

    Adv. N N SHAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRESH BHAILALBHAI PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Shivam Finance v. Chandresh Bhailalbhai Patel (CC 1004/2023) The court convicted Chandresh Bhailalbhai Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs.40,530/-. Patel borrowed Rs.40,000 from the complainant (Shivam Finance proprietor) and issued the cheque as repayment, which was returned with "Fund Insufficient" remark. After the complainant served a legal demand notice, Patel failed to pay within the statutory 15-day period, triggering the complaint filed on 15.02.2023. The court sentenced Patel to 12 months simple imprisonment and ordered payment of Rs.39,583/- compensation (after deducting Rs.5,000 already paid), with an additional 6-month imprisonment term if he defaults on compensation. The judgment found that Patel deliberately absented himself from trial proceedings despite fair opportunities, failed to present any defense evidence, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118-139 of the Act applied against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 07-May-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 04-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 09-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 23-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 19-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 02-May-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 18-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 17-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 01-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 06-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 14-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 12-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 30-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  24. 28-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  25. 12-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  26. 12-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  27. 03-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  28. 15-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  29. 25-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  30. 27-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  31. 12-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  32. 05-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  33. 08-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  34. 08-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  35. 30-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  36. 10-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  37. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  38. 07-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  39. 05-Jul-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  40. 23-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 03-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1004/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shivam Finance v. Chandresh Bhailalbhai Patel (CC 1004/2023) The court convicted Chandresh Bhailalbhai Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs.40,530/-. Patel borrowed Rs.40,000 from the complainant (Shivam Finance proprietor) and issued the cheque as repayment, which was returned with "Fund Insufficient" remark. After the complainant served a legal demand notice, Patel failed to pay within the statutory 15-day period, triggering the complaint filed on 15.02.2023. The court sentenced Patel to 12 months simple imprisonment and ordered payment of Rs.39,583/- compensation (after deducting Rs.5,000 already paid), with an additional 6-month imprisonment term if he defaults on compensation. The judgment found that Patel deliberately absented himself from trial proceedings despite fair opportunities, failed to present any defense evidence, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118-139 of the Act applied against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case