KANTILAL RANCHHODBHAI PARMAR 4,36,843 vs NAVINCHAND RAYCHAND DAKSHINI Advocate - V G VYAS — 406/2018

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 25th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMR060014982018

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

406/2018

Filing Date

24-08-2018

Registration No

406/2018

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

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

Petitioner(s)

KANTILAL RANCHHODBHAI PARMAR 4,36,843

Adv. D R RAVAL

Respondent(s)

NAVINCHAND RAYCHAND DAKSHINI Advocate - V G VYAS

Hearing History

Judge: 33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM

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

25-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court convicted the defendant Navinchand Raychand Dakshin (a trading company proprietor) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for dishonoring a check worth ₹4,36,843 issued to the complainant. The court found that the defendant issued the check for payment of a debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the bank account, and despite receiving a legal notice, failed to make payment within the stipulated 15-day period, thereby committing the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-08-2025
ORDER
09-09-2025
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the defendant Navinchand Raychand Dakshin (a trading company proprietor) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for dishonoring a check worth ₹4,36,843 issued to the complainant. The court found that the defendant issued the check for payment of a debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the bank account, and despite receiving a legal notice, failed to make payment within the stipulated 15-day period, thereby committing the offense. 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, HALVAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case