UPAVANKUMAR VINODCHANDRA BHOE vs PARTHKUMAR DIPAKBHAI PAREKH — 1691/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--WITHDRAWN on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM030023402025

Filing Number

1691/2025

Filing Date

27-Oct-2025

Registration No

1691/2025

Registration Date

27-Oct-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, KALOL

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--WITHDRAWN

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UPAVANKUMAR VINODCHANDRA BHOE

    Adv. R S SHETH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARTHKUMAR DIPAKBHAI PAREKH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 1691/2025 Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's request to proceed with an appeal, finding no grounds under the applicable legal framework. The court ordered the dismissal of the case and directed that the respondent be acquitted. The court declined to impose any legal service fee deposit requirement, citing precedent that such deposits are not justified when considering the financial circumstances of the parties involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 07-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 27-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1691/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 1691/2025 Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's request to proceed with an appeal, finding no grounds under the applicable legal framework. The court ordered the dismissal of the case and directed that the respondent be acquitted. The court declined to impose any legal service fee deposit requirement, citing precedent that such deposits are not justified when considering the financial circumstances of the parties involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case