RAJENDRASINH VAJUBHA PARMAR 2,22,922 vs NAVINCHAND RAYCHAND DAKSHINI Advocate - V G VYAS — 397/2018
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 25th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR060014972018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
397/2018
Filing Date
24-08-2018
Registration No
397/2018
Registration Date
24-08-2018
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALVAD
Judge
33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJENDRASINH VAJUBHA PARMAR 2,22,922
Adv. D R RAVAL
Respondent(s)
NAVINCHAND RAYCHAND DAKSHINI Advocate - V G VYAS
Hearing History
Judge: 33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 17-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 10-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 03-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Section 138 for issuing a check that bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant issued a check of ₹2,22,922 for goods purchased, which was returned marked "Funds Insufficient." Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days, making him guilty of the offense. The court sentenced him to 1 year imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,22,922 plus additional compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court convicted the accused under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Section 138 for issuing a check that bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant issued a check of ₹2,22,922 for goods purchased, which was returned marked "Funds Insufficient." Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days, making him guilty of the offense. The court sentenced him to 1 year imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,22,922 plus additional compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts