SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD. P.O.A. HOLDER SHRI NISHARAHEMAD GULAMAHEMAD SHEKH vs VIJAYBHAI KHENGARBHAI PARMAR Advocate - p m makwana — 1122/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN020015682023

Filing Number

1122/2023

Filing Date

09-May-2023

Registration No

1122/2023

Registration Date

09-May-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD. P.O.A. HOLDER SHRI NISHARAHEMAD GULAMAHEMAD SHEKH

    Adv. R M JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIJAYBHAI KHENGARBHAI PARMAR Advocate - p m makwana

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: CC No. 1122/2023 Court Decision: The accused, Vijaybhai Kengarbhai Parmar, is acquitted of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the criminal dishonor of a cheque, as the petitioner (Ram Finance Ltd.) failed to establish that the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 80,000 remained unpaid as a legally recoverable debt. Key Reasoning: The court held that while a cheque was returned with "Funds Insufficient," the petitioner could not definitively prove the exact amount owed or whether partial payments had been made toward the loan, making the presumption of criminal liability under Section 138 inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 19-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 19-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 27-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 11-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 01-Nov-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 01-Oct-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 04-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 05-Aug-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 03-Jul-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 12-Jun-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 27-May-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 28-Apr-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 09-Apr-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 24-Mar-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 17-Feb-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 30-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 22-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 20-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 27-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 18-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 21-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 18-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 04-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 07-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 16-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 18-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 27-May-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 30-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  37. 06-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 02-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 31-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  40. 08-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  41. 18-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  42. 07-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  43. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  44. 04-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  45. 02-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  46. 10-Jul-2023

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  47. 09-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 09-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1122/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 1122/2023 Court Decision: The accused, Vijaybhai Kengarbhai Parmar, is acquitted of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the criminal dishonor of a cheque, as the petitioner (Ram Finance Ltd.) failed to establish that the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 80,000 remained unpaid as a legally recoverable debt. Key Reasoning: The court held that while a cheque was returned with "Funds Insufficient," the petitioner could not definitively prove the exact amount owed or whether partial payments had been made toward the loan, making the presumption of criminal liability under Section 138 inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case