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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM040027312024
Filing Number
1729/2024
Filing Date
19-07-2024
Registration No
1729/2024
Registration Date
19-07-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SADAMHUSEN MURTUJABHAI KALOLIYA
Adv. S M MAKRANI
Respondent(s)
LUHAR FAISAL FIROZBHAI Advocate - S S DUBEY
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 05-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts