Saravanan vs Ashik Ibrahim — 300116/2018
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV120001272018
Next Hearing
20th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
300116/2018
Filing Date
14-05-2018
Registration No
300116/2018
Registration Date
14-05-2018
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saravanan
Adv. Mr.D.Prakash
Respondent(s)
Ashik Ibrahim
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant | |
| 19-01-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant | |
| 28-11-2025 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant | |
| 17-10-2025 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant | |
| 22-08-2025 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
Interim Orders
This is a deposition of witness (PW.1) recorded on 19.03.2024 in Criminal Case No.116/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Karaikudi. The witness (Saravanan) testified as the complainant and submitted documentary evidence including bank statements, legal notices, partnership deed, and temple registration documents to substantiate his claims. No cross-examination was conducted, and the court accepted the witness's testimony as credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a deposition of witness (PW.1) recorded on 19.03.2024 in Criminal Case No.116/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Karaikudi. The witness (Saravanan) testified as the complainant and submitted documentary evidence including bank statements, legal notices, partnership deed, and temple registration documents to substantiate his claims. No cross-examination was conducted, and the court accepted the witness's testimony as credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts