BHUWANESHWARI RAWAT vs RASHMI PAL — C528/936/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010075332026

Filing Number

C528/3590/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

C528/936/2026

Registration Date

05-May-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 OF OTHER COMPLAINT CASE ( 4 )

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.BHUWANESHWARI RAWAT

    Adv. RISHAB RANGHAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RASHMI PAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/936/2026 – Bhuwaneshwari Rawat v. Rashmi Pal The court directed expedited proceedings in a Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 cheque dishonour case filed in June 2022, which remained pending for four years. The respondent's repeated absences and bail violations caused undue delay, violating the statutory mandate for six-month trial completion. The court ordered the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months from the order date without granting unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/936/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/936/2026 – Bhuwaneshwari Rawat v. Rashmi Pal The court directed expedited proceedings in a Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 cheque dishonour case filed in June 2022, which remained pending for four years. The respondent's repeated absences and bail violations caused undue delay, violating the statutory mandate for six-month trial completion. The court ordered the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months from the order date without granting unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case