Mukesh vs Sunder lal — 547/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled by ADR on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJPG090011922024

Filing Number

1192/2024

Filing Date

19-Dec-2024

Registration No

547/2024

Registration Date

19-Dec-2024

Court

ACJM TALUKACOURT DHARIYAWAD

Judge

10-Acjm

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled by ADR

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mukesh

    Adv. SAIYAD TAJ MOHAMMAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sunder lal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 547/2024 Summary The court dismissed petitioner Mukesh's petition challenging the competent officer's decision to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Sunder Lal. The court found that Mukesh failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of the notice and that the petition lacked merit, particularly after the respondent's objections were considered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 29-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  5. 13-Nov-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  6. 25-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  7. 19-Jun-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  8. 03-Apr-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  9. 06-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 19-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 547/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 547/2024 Summary The court dismissed petitioner Mukesh's petition challenging the competent officer's decision to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Sunder Lal. The court found that Mukesh failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of the notice and that the petition lacked merit, particularly after the respondent's objections were considered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case