MAMTABEN BHIKHUBHAI GAMIT vs DEVANAND VASANTBHAI SALVE PROPRIETOR AND A/C OF BABA BOOT HOUSE Advocate - R R MUSALMAN — 2886/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Status: EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION. Next hearing: 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJTP020035182025
Next Hearing
11th March 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2886/2025
Filing Date
03-10-2025
Registration No
2886/2025
Registration Date
03-10-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT, VYARA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAMTABEN BHIKHUBHAI GAMIT
Adv. Z H VAKHARIYA
Respondent(s)
DEVANAND VASANTBHAI SALVE PROPRIETOR AND A/C OF BABA BOOT HOUSE Advocate - R R MUSALMAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 18-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 22-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the complainant's application under Section 143(A)(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding a dishonored cheque of Rs. 10,00,000. The accused is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount (Rs. 2,00,000) in court within 15 days. The court found a prima facie case favoring the complainant based on documentary evidence and the accused's own admission of receiving Rs. 42,00,000, while rejecting the accused's duress defense as lacking credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the complainant's application under Section 143(A)(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding a dishonored cheque of Rs. 10,00,000. The accused is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount (Rs. 2,00,000) in court within 15 days. The court found a prima facie case favoring the complainant based on documentary evidence and the accused's own admission of receiving Rs. 42,00,000, while rejecting the accused's duress defense as lacking credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts