Sathiskumar vs Harish Paper Company, Koottu Niruvanam through share owner Subramanian — 75/2019
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(3). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 27th March 2026.
CRLA - Criminal Appeal
CNR: TNSV010036352019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2982/2019
Filing Date
03-10-2019
Registration No
75/2019
Registration Date
15-10-2019
Court
District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sathiskumar
Adv. Gowtham S
Respondent(s)
Harish Paper Company, Koottu Niruvanam through share owner Subramanian
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The High Court of Madras set aside the lower court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the accused's liability was not established beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence regarding the consideration for the cheque. The court held that while a cheque was issued for ₹5,50,000, the accused adequately demonstrated payment arrangements and disputed the claimed outstanding liability, thereby benefiting from legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Madras set aside the lower court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the accused's liability was not established beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence regarding the consideration for the cheque. The court held that while a cheque was issued for ₹5,50,000, the accused adequately demonstrated payment arrangements and disputed the claimed outstanding liability, thereby benefiting from legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts