Janagaran vs Murugan — 102/2026

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 142(b). Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNDG130002372026

Filing Number

237/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

102/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Oddanchatram

Judge

2-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Allowed

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 142(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Janagaran

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Murugan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate Court of Oddanchatram allowed Shriram Finance Ltd.'s petition to condone a 94-day delay in filing a cheque bounce complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation that the delay resulted from original documents being misplaced with arbitration bundles and was not willful. Adopting a liberal, justice-oriented approach, the court held that technical limitations should not prevent examination of case merits, particularly where the delay was non-deliberate and condonation serves justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 102/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate Court of Oddanchatram allowed Shriram Finance Ltd.'s petition to condone a 94-day delay in filing a cheque bounce complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation that the delay resulted from original documents being misplaced with arbitration bundles and was not willful. Adopting a liberal, justice-oriented approach, the court held that technical limitations should not prevent examination of case merits, particularly where the delay was non-deliberate and condonation serves justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case