ALPESHBHAI NATVARLAL RATHOD vs DEVENKUMAR KANTILAL MISTRY Advocate - B J KHERNAR — 8586/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 13th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNV020111532024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8586/2024
Filing Date
02-12-2024
Registration No
8586/2024
Registration Date
02-12-2024
Court
CIVIL COURT, NAVSARI
Judge
8-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ALPESHBHAI NATVARLAL RATHOD
Adv. M M LALANI
Respondent(s)
DEVENKUMAR KANTILAL MISTRY Advocate - B J KHERNAR
Hearing History
Judge: 8-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF OPPONENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 03-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 20-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF OPPONENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court found the accused guilty under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- that bounced due to insufficient funds. The accused failed to refund the amount within 15 days of receiving the dishonor notice, despite the complainant's demand. The court sentenced the accused to one year simple imprisonment and ordered compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the complainant, with an additional three-month imprisonment if the compensation remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court found the accused guilty under the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 for issuing a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- that bounced due to insufficient funds. The accused failed to refund the amount within 15 days of receiving the dishonor notice, despite the complainant's demand. The court sentenced the accused to one year simple imprisonment and ordered compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the complainant, with an additional three-month imprisonment if the compensation remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts