VASU MANISHBHAI KAKDIYA AUTHORISED PERSON OF VASU INNOVATION vs PRABHAKAR HAREKSHNA NAYAKPRO. PRATIBHA SILK MILLA Advocate - D P JOGANI — 3399/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,141,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 12th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR090039572024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3399/2024

Filing Date

11-12-2024

Registration No

3399/2024

Registration Date

11-12-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALSANA

Judge

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

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,141,

Petitioner(s)

VASU MANISHBHAI KAKDIYA AUTHORISED PERSON OF VASU INNOVATION

Adv. P D MANGUKIYA

Respondent(s)

PRABHAKAR HAREKSHNA NAYAKPRO. PRATIBHA SILK MILLA Advocate - D P JOGANI

Hearing History

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

12-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

06-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

24-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

20-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The court convicted the accused, Prabhakar Harkishnayan (proprietor of Pratibha Silk Mills), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing three cheques totaling ₹1,46,170 that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant had provided goods on credit, and despite a legal notice within 30 days of dishonor, the accused failed to pay. The court found the accused guilty as he could not rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118-139 of the Act and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court convicted the accused, Prabhakar Harkishnayan (proprietor of Pratibha Silk Mills), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing three cheques totaling ₹1,46,170 that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant had provided goods on credit, and despite a legal notice within 30 days of dishonor, the accused failed to pay. The court found the accused guilty as he could not rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118-139 of the Act and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALSANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case