Pranav Agency, Rep.Prabakar vs G.K.Veg Restaurant — 291/2020
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG060048022020
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
4801/2020
Filing Date
22-10-2020
Registration No
291/2020
Registration Date
09-12-2020
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pranav Agency, Rep.Prabakar
Adv. Krishnamoorthy.V
Respondent(s)
G.K.Veg Restaurant
Karunagaran.G
Karunagaran.G
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Evidence
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 09-04-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 26-03-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 18-03-2026 | CMP Pending |
Interim Orders
Case 291/2020 Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu allowed a petition filed by G.K. Hospitality Solutions and V. Karunakaran (accused in a Negotiable Instruments Act case filed by Pranav Agency). The court permitted the accused to examine bank managers from State Bank of India, Urapakkam Branch and Indian Bank, Chitlapakkam Branch as defense witnesses, along with bank statements from 2018 onwards, to establish legitimate business transactions between the parties. The respondent's earlier argument that bills/receipts were sufficient proof was overruled in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 291/2020 Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu allowed a petition filed by G.K. Hospitality Solutions and V. Karunakaran (accused in a Negotiable Instruments Act case filed by Pranav Agency). The court permitted the accused to examine bank managers from State Bank of India, Urapakkam Branch and Indian Bank, Chitlapakkam Branch as defense witnesses, along with bank statements from 2018 onwards, to establish legitimate business transactions between the parties. The respondent's earlier argument that bills/receipts were sufficient proof was overruled in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts