SADAMHUSEN MURTUJABHAI KALOLIYA vs LUHAR FAISAL FIROZBHAI Advocate - S S DUBEY — 1729/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM040027312024

Filing Number

1729/2024

Filing Date

19-Jul-2024

Registration No

1729/2024

Registration Date

19-Jul-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, HALOL

Judge

3-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SADAMHUSEN MURTUJABHAI KALOLIYA

    Adv. S M MAKRANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LUHAR FAISAL FIROZBHAI Advocate - S S DUBEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1729/2024 Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol Parties: Sadamhusen Murtujabhai Kaloliya (Complainant) v. Luhar Faisal Firozbhai (Accused) Charge: Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 Decision: The court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and fine of ₹1,49,800 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court directed that ₹1,39,800 from the fine amount be paid to the complainant as compensation. The accused's defense that he had repaid only ₹10,000 borrowed (not the full ₹1,20,000 claimed) and that the check was misused was rejected as it failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 22-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 28-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 30-Oct-2025

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 25-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 21-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 14-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 09-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 21-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 03-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 10-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 03-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 06-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 16-Dec-2024

    Further Statement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 25-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 05-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  24. 01-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  25. 03-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  26. 27-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 19-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1729/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1729/2024 Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol Parties: Sadamhusen Murtujabhai Kaloliya (Complainant) v. Luhar Faisal Firozbhai (Accused) Charge: Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 Decision: The court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and fine of ₹1,49,800 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court directed that ₹1,39,800 from the fine amount be paid to the complainant as compensation. The accused's defense that he had repaid only ₹10,000 borrowed (not the full ₹1,20,000 claimed) and that the check was misused was rejected as it failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case