DHARMENDRA VISHNUBHAI PATEL vs ASHWINKUMAR JAYANTILAL PATEL Advocate - H D SOLANKI — 106/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH160001182025

Filing Number

106/2025

Filing Date

10-Mar-2025

Registration No

106/2025

Registration Date

10-Mar-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VASO

Judge

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

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARMENDRA VISHNUBHAI PATEL

    Adv. S M MALEK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASHWINKUMAR JAYANTILAL PATEL Advocate - H D SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: C.C. No. 106/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused Ashwinkumar Jayantilal Patel under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, for issuing a dishonored check. The accused issued a check for Rs. 10,00,000 to the complainant, which was returned by the bank with "Insufficient Funds" notation. Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to pay the amount, constituting a criminal offense. Key Reasoning: The court found that the accused signed and delivered the check to discharge a debt/liability, the check was presented within three months, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and proper notice was served but not complied with—all essential elements under Section 138 being satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 31-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 18-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 03-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 02-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 17-Jun-2025

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 26-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 05-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 11-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 10-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 106/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C. No. 106/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused Ashwinkumar Jayantilal Patel under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, for issuing a dishonored check. The accused issued a check for Rs. 10,00,000 to the complainant, which was returned by the bank with "Insufficient Funds" notation. Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to pay the amount, constituting a criminal offense. Key Reasoning: The court found that the accused signed and delivered the check to discharge a debt/liability, the check was presented within three months, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and proper notice was served but not complied with—all essential elements under Section 138 being satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case