HIQ LEATHER REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SIVAKUMAR vs RAJARAM Advocate - BABU K — 508/2020
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNRP040006892020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
631/2020
Filing Date
07-12-2020
Registration No
508/2020
Registration Date
11-12-2020
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet
Judge
5-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HIQ LEATHER REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SIVAKUMAR
Adv. MARAN A
Respondent(s)
RAJARAM Advocate - BABU K
Hearing History
Judge: 5-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet acquitted the accused Rajaram of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. Although the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 72,20,000 that was dishonored, the court determined the accused successfully raised probable defenses—including inconsistent transaction narratives, lack of proper documentation, invalid Power of Attorney, and unexplained monetary calculations—which shifted the burden to the complainant, who failed to meet it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet acquitted the accused Rajaram of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. Although the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 72,20,000 that was dishonored, the court determined the accused successfully raised probable defenses—including inconsistent transaction narratives, lack of proper documentation, invalid Power of Attorney, and unexplained monetary calculations—which shifted the burden to the complainant, who failed to meet it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts