THE PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT CO.OP.BANK LTD. SANTROAD (SALIYA) BRANCH MANAGAR vs JITENDRAKUMAR TAKHATSINH PATEL — 13/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 18th April 2026.

CR EN - CRIMINAL ENQUIRY

CNR: GJPM090000462026

Case disposed

Filing Number

13/2026

Filing Date

07-02-2026

Registration No

13/2026

Registration Date

07-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MORVA HADAF

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

18th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

THE PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT CO.OP.BANK LTD. SANTROAD (SALIYA) BRANCH MANAGAR

Adv. N G RATHOD

Respondent(s)

JITENDRAKUMAR TAKHATSINH PATEL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

18-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PROCESS TO WITNESSES

28-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

28-02-2026

Restored

28-02-2026

Disposed

Final Orders / Judgements

18-04-2026
ORDER

Case Summary (13/2026): The Morva(H) Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the Panchmahal District Co-operative Bank's complaint against Jitendrakumar Takhatsinh Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce offense). The court found the complaint, affidavit, and supporting documents sufficient and issued summons without requiring pre-cognizance inquiry, following Supreme Court precedent that the NI Act, being a special enactment, permits direct cognizance based on documentary evidence. Summons may be served via normal mode, registered post, or email. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary (13/2026): The Morva(H) Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the Panchmahal District Co-operative Bank's complaint against Jitendrakumar Takhatsinh Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce offense). The court found the complaint, affidavit, and supporting documents sufficient and issued summons without requiring pre-cognizance inquiry, following Supreme Court precedent that the NI Act, being a special enactment, permits direct cognizance based on documentary evidence. Summons may be served via normal mode, registered post, or email. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MORVA HADAF All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case