Gentleman Chit Funds vs Manju. C — 302560/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 21st April 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLAL120036362019
Filing Number
303636/2019
Filing Date
17-07-2019
Registration No
302560/2019
Registration Date
17-07-2019
Court
JFCM I Cherthala
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gentleman Chit Funds
Adv. ALEX. P ISSAC
Respondent(s)
Manju. C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala
Disposed
Appearance of Accused
Order/ Judgement
No sitting notified
No sitting notified
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-04-2026 | Appearance of Accused |
| 13-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 07-04-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 30-03-2026 | No sitting notified |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Manju C of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the complainant (Gentleman Chit Funds Co.) failed to prove that a legally enforceable debt of ₹1,01,510 existed when the cheque was issued. The court determined the complainant's ledger documents contradicted the claimed settlement amount—showing only ₹15,000 outstanding in one chitty and no balance in the other—and the witness lacked direct personal knowledge of the alleged settlement transaction, rendering the oral testimony insufficient without corroborating documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Manju C of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the complainant (Gentleman Chit Funds Co.) failed to prove that a legally enforceable debt of ₹1,01,510 existed when the cheque was issued. The court determined the complainant's ledger documents contradicted the claimed settlement amount—showing only ₹15,000 outstanding in one chitty and no balance in the other—and the witness lacked direct personal knowledge of the alleged settlement transaction, rendering the oral testimony insufficient without corroborating documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts