UPENDRABHAI KANTILAL MAVANI 5,20,000 vs JAYANTIBHAI R. PATEL Advocate - K B SAGAPARIYA — 165/2018
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR060011942018
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
165/2018
Filing Date
24-05-2018
Registration No
165/2018
Registration Date
24-05-2018
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALVAD
Judge
33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UPENDRABHAI KANTILAL MAVANI 5,20,000
Adv. M M VAGHELA
Respondent(s)
JAYANTIBHAI R. PATEL Advocate - K B SAGAPARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 28-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 27-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 20-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: C.C.NO.165-2018 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the accused's plea to stay proceedings under Section 136 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the case involves criminal proceedings under a criminal statute with the objective of maintaining confidence in banking systems, not a civil money recovery matter. The court upheld the lower court's order and directed that all proceedings continue against the accused, as the matter does not qualify for the protective moratorium claimed under the NI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C.NO.165-2018 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the accused's plea to stay proceedings under Section 136 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the case involves criminal proceedings under a criminal statute with the objective of maintaining confidence in banking systems, not a civil money recovery matter. The court upheld the lower court's order and directed that all proceedings continue against the accused, as the matter does not qualify for the protective moratorium claimed under the NI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts