ANKURKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL vs SANDIPBHAI DAYASHANKAR MISHRA — 239/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH160003002025
Filing Number
239/2025
Filing Date
04-07-2025
Registration No
239/2025
Registration Date
04-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VASO
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ANKURKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL
Adv. M B MAHIDA
Respondent(s)
SANDIPBHAI DAYASHANKAR MISHRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
PLEA
PLEA
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 27-02-2026 | PLEA |
| 13-02-2026 | PLEA |
| 13-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C.No. 239/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused, Sandipbhai Dayashankar Mishra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of ₹1,40,000. The accused is sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner, with additional fine if imprisonment is not served. Key Reasoning: The petitioner loaned money to the accused, who issued a cheque as security. The cheque was dishonored despite proper notice. The court found the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for debt discharge, and the accused provided no valid defense despite opportunity to do so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C.No. 239/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused, Sandipbhai Dayashankar Mishra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of ₹1,40,000. The accused is sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner, with additional fine if imprisonment is not served. Key Reasoning: The petitioner loaned money to the accused, who issued a cheque as security. The cheque was dishonored despite proper notice. The court found the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for debt discharge, and the accused provided no valid defense despite opportunity to do so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts