NEEPA R vs MALARVIZHI K Advocate - APP, KIRUBAKARAN S — 207/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 142,138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRP090004902019
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
490/2019
Filing Date
09-09-2019
Registration No
207/2019
Registration Date
12-12-2019
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Arakkonam
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NEEPA R
Adv. NALINI M, PADMANABAN M
Respondent(s)
MALARVIZHI K Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor), KIRUBAKARAN S
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 19-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-12-2025 | Evidence | |
| 03-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a witness deposition document from Arakkonam Criminal Court No. 1 (Case No. CC.207/2019) dated August 20, 2025, where the witness Neepa (age 44, female) gave testimony under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1983. The witness's statement was recorded in open court regarding a case involving a missing gold chain and related documents, with the deponent's credibility being significantly questioned through cross-examination regarding inconsistencies in her complaint and primary statement regarding the accused's husband's name. No formal order such as bail, dismissal, or adjournment is issued in this document—it is purely a transcript of witness examination testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a witness deposition document from Arakkonam Criminal Court No. 1 (Case No. CC.207/2019) dated August 20, 2025, where the witness Neepa (age 44, female) gave testimony under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1983. The witness's statement was recorded in open court regarding a case involving a missing gold chain and related documents, with the deponent's credibility being significantly questioned through cross-examination regarding inconsistencies in her complaint and primary statement regarding the accused's husband's name. No formal order such as bail, dismissal, or adjournment is issued in this document—it is purely a transcript of witness examination 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