Jagadeeswari G vs Sundar V — 113/2023
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 24th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG060035082023
Filing Number
3494/2023
Filing Date
06-04-2023
Registration No
113/2023
Registration Date
16-05-2023
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
8-Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Conviction
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jagadeeswari G
Adv. Magesh Kumar.H.T
Respondent(s)
Sundar V
Hearing History
Judge: 8-Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Judgement
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Compliance |
| 07-04-2026 | Compliance |
| 30-03-2026 | Compliance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 113/2023 Summary Jagadeeswari v. Sundar – The Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000. The court found that the complainant proved all essential elements: the cheque was issued for a loan, presented within validity, returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and statutory notice was properly served. The accused's defense that the cheque was stolen in 2017 lacked credible evidence, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant. Sentence: Six months simple imprisonment plus compensation of the cheque amount or one month additional imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 113/2023 Summary Jagadeeswari v. Sundar – The Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000. The court found that the complainant proved all essential elements: the cheque was issued for a loan, presented within validity, returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and statutory notice was properly served. The accused's defense that the cheque was stolen in 2017 lacked credible evidence, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant. Sentence: Six months simple imprisonment plus compensation of the cheque amount or one month additional imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts