Thenmozhi vs Vanitha — 77/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV120016962024
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
22-05-2024
Filing Number
1696/2024
Filing Date
31-05-2024
Registration No
77/2024
Registration Date
31-05-2024
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thenmozhi
Adv. bharathi raja
Respondent(s)
Vanitha
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 14-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case 77/2024 Summary: In this cross-examination proceeding dated 14.05.2026, respondent Vanitha (daughter of Srinivasan) testified regarding a loan dispute with petitioner Thenmozhi. Vanitha admitted to borrowing ₹60,000 from Thenmozhi and repaying it in full with documentary evidence (Exhibit 2), but disputed claims of owing ₹2,00,000. The court found contradictions in Thenmozhi's statements regarding the total loan amount and concluded that Vanitha had satisfactorily repaid the substantiated debt of ₹60,000; the petition regarding the additional amount lacked sufficient documentary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 77/2024 Summary: In this cross-examination proceeding dated 14.05.2026, respondent Vanitha (daughter of Srinivasan) testified regarding a loan dispute with petitioner Thenmozhi. Vanitha admitted to borrowing ₹60,000 from Thenmozhi and repaying it in full with documentary evidence (Exhibit 2), but disputed claims of owing ₹2,00,000. The court found contradictions in Thenmozhi's statements regarding the total loan amount and concluded that Vanitha had satisfactorily repaid the substantiated debt of ₹60,000; the petition regarding the additional amount lacked sufficient documentary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts