Uma rep by her special power of attorney Rajkumar, vs Gubendiran — 1237/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 13th May 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG150026052025
Filing Number
2605/2025
Filing Date
27-10-2025
Registration No
1237/2025
Registration Date
27-10-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurantakam
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Uma rep by her special power of attorney Rajkumar,
Adv. S.Subramanian,
Respondent(s)
Gubendiran
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurantakam
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Orders |
| 17-04-2026 | Orders |
| 27-03-2026 | Orders |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Uma v. S. Gubendran (Crl.M.P. No. 1237/2025) The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Maduranthakam allowed Uma's petition to use a photocopy of a cheque as secondary evidence in her Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 complaint against S. Gubendran for cheque dishonour dated 03.04.2018. The court found that the original cheque was produced and verified at the time of complaint filing, subsequently lost on 25.12.2019 (supported by a police complaint), and the photocopy retained on court record was admissible as secondary evidence. The respondent filed no counter-objection, and the court relied on High Court precedent establishing that such photocopies are admissible when the original's authenticity was previously verified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Uma v. S. Gubendran (Crl.M.P. No. 1237/2025) The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Maduranthakam allowed Uma's petition to use a photocopy of a cheque as secondary evidence in her Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 complaint against S. Gubendran for cheque dishonour dated 03.04.2018. The court found that the original cheque was produced and verified at the time of complaint filing, subsequently lost on 25.12.2019 (supported by a police complaint), and the photocopy retained on court record was admissible as secondary evidence. The respondent filed no counter-objection, and the court relied on High Court precedent establishing that such photocopies are admissible when the original's authenticity was previously verified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts