V. UdayaKumar vs S. Lamathi — 42/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 200. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 11th June 2026 Date Not Updated.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNCG100007562024
Next Hearing
11th June 2026 Date Not Updated
Filing Number
683/2024
Filing Date
28-02-2024
Registration No
42/2024
Registration Date
28-02-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
V. UdayaKumar
Adv. M. Saravanan
R. Raju
Respondent(s)
S. Lamathi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram
Judgement
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
CMP Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-06-2026 | Judgement |
| 29-05-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 19-05-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 11-05-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 05-05-2026 | CMP Pending |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness deposition, not a case judgment or order. It records testimony given on 16.07.2025 by a witness (Raji, son of Ramasamy) in STC Case 42/2024 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram. The witness, who worked as an assistant to petitioner V. Udayakumar for 20 years, testified about a ₹30 lakh loan given to respondent S. Lamathi in November 2014 and subsequent partial repayments of ₹9 lakh. No case outcome (bail, dismissal, adjournment) is determined in this document—it is purely evidentiary testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness deposition, not a case judgment or order. It records testimony given on 16.07.2025 by a witness (Raji, son of Ramasamy) in STC Case 42/2024 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram. The witness, who worked as an assistant to petitioner V. Udayakumar for 20 years, testified about a ₹30 lakh loan given to respondent S. Lamathi in November 2014 and subsequent partial repayments of ₹9 lakh. No case outcome (bail, dismissal, adjournment) is determined in this document—it is purely evidentiary testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts