THAKOR KAILASHBEN PARABATJI vs SATHAWARA MAYURKUMAR KANUBHAI Advocate - R S DARJI — 657/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 23rd March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH110008742024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

657/2024

Filing Date

16-12-2024

Registration No

657/2024

Registration Date

16-12-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, SATLASANA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

Petitioner(s)

THAKOR KAILASHBEN PARABATJI

Adv. L A MEVA

Respondent(s)

SATHAWARA MAYURKUMAR KANUBHAI Advocate - R S DARJI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

23-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

25-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

16-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

JUDGEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of Rs. 75,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds. The court found that the complainant sufficiently proved the cheque was issued for discharging a lawful debt, establishing the mandatory statutory presumption in favor of the cheque holder. The accused failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence despite claiming settlement, as his own admissions and the documentary evidence established his liability. The court sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay Rs. 75,000 compensation to the complainant plus interest under CrPC Section 357(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of Rs. 75,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds. The court found that the complainant sufficiently proved the cheque was issued for discharging a lawful debt, establishing the mandatory statutory presumption in favor of the cheque holder. The accused failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence despite claiming settlement, as his own admissions and the documentary evidence established his liability. The court sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay Rs. 75,000 compensation to the complainant plus interest under CrPC Section 357(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SATLASANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case