VISHAL DHIMAN vs RAVI VERMA — C528/875/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881) Section 138. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010070862026

Filing Number

C528/3386/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

C528/875/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 138 N.I. ACT ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881) Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VISHAL DHIMAN

    Adv. ANUJ KUMAR TYAGI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVI VERMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/875/2026 — VISHAL DHIMAN v. RAVI VERMA The court dismissed Vishal Dhiman's application challenging the summoning order in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. Dhiman argued the complaint was unmaintainable because the demand notice under Section 138(b) was issued over one month after the cheque dishonor on 20.04.2020. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Supreme Court's January 2022 judgment excluded the COVID-19 lockdown period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) from limitation calculations, making the delayed notice valid. The summoning order dated 08.01.2021 was upheld as legally valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/875/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/875/2026 — VISHAL DHIMAN v. RAVI VERMA The court dismissed Vishal Dhiman's application challenging the summoning order in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. Dhiman argued the complaint was unmaintainable because the demand notice under Section 138(b) was issued over one month after the cheque dishonor on 20.04.2020. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Supreme Court's January 2022 judgment excluded the COVID-19 lockdown period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) from limitation calculations, making the delayed notice valid. The summoning order dated 08.01.2021 was upheld as legally valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case