Salman Liyakatkha Pathan vs Shaikh Riyaz Gulam Rabbani — 484/2026
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 27th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU030022942026
e-Filing Number
28-01-2026
Filing Number
2294/2026
Filing Date
29-01-2026
Registration No
484/2026
Registration Date
30-01-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Aurangabad
Judge
6-Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate No 5 Abad
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Salman Liyakatkha Pathan
Adv. DESHPANDE ANAND SUDHIR
Respondent(s)
Shaikh Riyaz Gulam Rabbani
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate No 5 Abad
Disposed
Order
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 23-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-02-2026 | Compliance |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the petitioner Salman Pathan's application for condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in filing a complaint against respondent Shaikh Riyaz for dishonor of a cheque worth Rs. 5,77,57,103. The court found the 2-day delay justified due to economic hardship preventing timely payment of court fees, and determined that permitting the delay would cause no prejudice to the accused while rejection would cause irreparable loss to the complainant. The complaint was directed to be registered with a new number. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the petitioner Salman Pathan's application for condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in filing a complaint against respondent Shaikh Riyaz for dishonor of a cheque worth Rs. 5,77,57,103. The court found the 2-day delay justified due to economic hardship preventing timely payment of court fees, and determined that permitting the delay would cause no prejudice to the accused while rejection would cause irreparable loss to the complainant. The complaint was directed to be registered with a new number. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts