AJAY SHARMA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/927/2026
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881) Section 138. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010075012026
Filing Number
C528/3569/2026
Filing Date
05-05-2026
Registration No
C528/927/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
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
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AJAY SHARMA
Adv. MOHD AZIM
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
ASHISH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 19-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
CASE SUMMARY: C528/927/2026 The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Ajay Sharma's petition challenging closure of his defence evidence in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint pending since 2018. The court found that despite repeated opportunities (including a final opportunity with cost penalty), Sharma failed to present defence evidence due to employment-related absences. The trial court's April 2025 order closing defence evidence and the revisional court's confirmation were upheld as justified given eight years' delay against the statutory six-month disposal mandate and Sharma's lack of diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: C528/927/2026 The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Ajay Sharma's petition challenging closure of his defence evidence in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint pending since 2018. The court found that despite repeated opportunities (including a final opportunity with cost penalty), Sharma failed to present defence evidence due to employment-related absences. The trial court's April 2025 order closing defence evidence and the revisional court's confirmation were upheld as justified given eight years' delay against the statutory six-month disposal mandate and Sharma's lack of diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts