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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts