MAHESHBHAI T. DOLTANI vs MOHAMAD HANIF AHMAD CHANDA Advocate - L S PARMAR — 1319/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 24th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM020020562024
Filing Number
1319/2024
Filing Date
16-04-2024
Registration No
1319/2024
Registration Date
16-04-2024
Court
CIVIL COURT GODHRA
Judge
1-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHESHBHAI T. DOLTANI
Adv. A A SAMTANI
Respondent(s)
MOHAMAD HANIF AHMAD CHANDA Advocate - L S PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 25-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal Case 1319/2024 Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra Parties: Maheshbhai T. Doltani (Petitioner) v. Mohamad Hanif Ahmad Chanda (Respondent) Charge: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 Decision: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 2 years simple imprisonment with an order to compensate the complainant ₹1,50,000 within 30 days, or face an additional 45 days imprisonment. The court found that the complainant had proven all essential elements of the cheque bouncing offense: the accused issued a cheque for repayment of a loan, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, proper notice was given, and payment was not made within the statutory period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 1319/2024 Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra Parties: Maheshbhai T. Doltani (Petitioner) v. Mohamad Hanif Ahmad Chanda (Respondent) Charge: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 Decision: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 2 years simple imprisonment with an order to compensate the complainant ₹1,50,000 within 30 days, or face an additional 45 days imprisonment. The court found that the complainant had proven all essential elements of the cheque bouncing offense: the accused issued a cheque for repayment of a loan, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, proper notice was given, and payment was not made within the statutory period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts