Dhanamjai Nidhi Ltd vs Bindhu V G — 2249/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section Sec 138 and 142. Status: Not in the list. Next hearing: 19th August 2026.
Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETN.
CNR: KLTV360022292025
Next Hearing
19th August 2026
Filing Number
2249/2025
Filing Date
03-07-2025
Registration No
2249/2025
Registration Date
04-07-2025
Court
Judicial First class Magistrate Court 2 Nedumangadu
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II NEDUMANGAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhanamjai Nidhi Ltd
Adv. LEKSHMI GIREESH
Respondent(s)
Bindhu V G
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II NEDUMANGAD
Not in the list
Appearance Of Parties
Return of notice
Return of notice
Issue notice to respondent. For return of Notice.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Not in the list |
| 27-02-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
| 10-12-2025 | Return of notice |
| 19-09-2025 | Return of notice |
| 04-07-2025 | Issue notice to respondent. For return of Notice. |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for condonation of delay in filing a cheque dishonor complaint (under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) was allowed. The court accepted the complainant's explanation that the delay resulted from bona fide administrative reasons—specifically, misplacement of cheques during office furniture rearrangement—and found the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The accused did not file any objection despite being served notice, and the court determined that refusing condonation would cause irreparable prejudice to the complainant while no prejudice was shown to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for condonation of delay in filing a cheque dishonor complaint (under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) was allowed. The court accepted the complainant's explanation that the delay resulted from bona fide administrative reasons—specifically, misplacement of cheques during office furniture rearrangement—and found the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The accused did not file any objection despite being served notice, and the court determined that refusing condonation would cause irreparable prejudice to the complainant while no prejudice was shown to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts