RAJDIPBHAI DUDABHAI PIPROTAR 1,30,582 vs NAVINCHANDRA RAYCHANDBHAI DAKSHINI TAKKAR Advocate - V G VYAS — 1220/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR060016012019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1220/2019
Filing Date
27-12-2019
Registration No
1220/2019
Registration Date
27-12-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALVAD
Judge
33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJDIPBHAI DUDABHAI PIPROTAR 1,30,582
Adv. L G SONAGRA
Respondent(s)
NAVINCHANDRA RAYCHANDBHAI DAKSHINI TAKKAR 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 17-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court convicted the accused (Navinchand Rayhand Dakshini) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque of ₹1,30,582 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court sentenced the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,61,164 (double the cheque amount), with the fine amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation; in default of payment, additional imprisonment was prescribed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court convicted the accused (Navinchand Rayhand Dakshini) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque of ₹1,30,582 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court sentenced the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,61,164 (double the cheque amount), with the fine amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation; in default of payment, additional imprisonment was prescribed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts