karnan vs latha — 158/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV120026132024
e-Filing Number
11-09-2024
Filing Number
2612/2024
Filing Date
13-Sep-2024
Registration No
158/2024
Registration Date
13-Sep-2024
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
Alagapapuram Police Station
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.karnan
Adv. Karthik Vakil
Respondent(s)
-
1.latha
Case History
-
01-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
25-May-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
20-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
14-May-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
Case Summary: CC No. 158/2024 Petitioner: Karnan | Respondent: Latha | Date: 14.05.2026 In this cross-examination testimony (recorded under the Indian Evidence Act, 1873), petitioner Karnan testified regarding a loan dispute with respondent Latha. Karnan claimed he lent approximately Rs. 2 lakhs to Latha for real estate purposes, with total outstanding claims across 4-5 cases amounting to approximately Rs. 6 lakhs. However, during cross-examination, Karnan admitted to significant inconsistencies: he could not provide proper documentation or witness verification for the alleged loans, lacked government authorization as a moneylender, could not explain details about Latha's business or financial status despite knowing her for 3.5 years, and failed to produce signed agreements. The court found his testimony unconvincing and lacking credibility regarding the alleged loan transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
12-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
08-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
18-Dec-2025
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
30-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
13-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
04-Sep-2025
Lok Adalat
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
07-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
26-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
28-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
21-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
08-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
16-Apr-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
04-Apr-2025
Copy of depositionView PDF
-
04-Apr-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
24-Mar-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
23-Jan-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
11-Dec-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
21-Nov-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
15-Oct-2024
Service Pending-Warrant
Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi
-
13-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 158/2024
Case Summary: CC No. 158/2024 Petitioner: Karnan | Respondent: Latha | Date: 14.05.2026 In this cross-examination testimony (recorded under the Indian Evidence Act, 1873), petitioner Karnan testified regarding a loan dispute with respondent Latha. Karnan claimed he lent approximately Rs. 2 lakhs to Latha for real estate purposes, with total outstanding claims across 4-5 cases amounting to approximately Rs. 6 lakhs. However, during cross-examination, Karnan admitted to significant inconsistencies: he could not provide proper documentation or witness verification for the alleged loans, lacked government authorization as a moneylender, could not explain details about Latha's business or financial status despite knowing her for 3.5 years, and failed to produce signed agreements. The court found his testimony unconvincing and lacking credibility regarding the alleged loan transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts