velayutham vs Arockiyasami — 168/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 09-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNSV120026822024

e-Filing Number

18-09-2024

Filing Number

2681/2024

Filing Date

27-Sep-2024

Registration No

168/2024

Registration Date

09-Oct-2024

Court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 395

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.velayutham

    Adv. Selvaraj R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Arockiyasami

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  3. 13-May-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

    Case Summary: CC No. 168/2024 Court: Fast Track Magistrate Court, Karaikudi Date: 13.05.2026 Petitioner: Velayutham Respondent: Arockiyasami This is a civil case involving a loan dispute. Velayutham (petitioner) testified during cross-examination, denying key allegations by the respondent. He claimed he lacked sufficient financial means to give the alleged loan of ₹15,70,000 on 03.11.2023, and stated the money came from his sister and wife. He denied providing any written security, documents, or authorization letters. The petitioner also disputed claims about gold ornaments being pledged with a finance company and denied various financial transactions attributed to him. The court recorded his testimony and the witness acknowledged the statement as recorded and read back in court. Outcome: The case remains under trial with cross-examination testimony recorded. No final order/judgment has been passed; the matter is still pending adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  5. 07-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  12. 06-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  13. 31-Oct-2025

    Mediation

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  14. 25-Aug-2025

    Mediation

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  15. 30-Jul-2025

    Mediation

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  16. 23-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  17. 13-Jun-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  18. 12-May-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  19. 02-Apr-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  20. 28-Jan-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  21. 07-Jan-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  22. 18-Dec-2024

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  23. 11-Nov-2024

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  24. 09-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 27-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 168/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 168/2024 Court: Fast Track Magistrate Court, Karaikudi Date: 13.05.2026 Petitioner: Velayutham Respondent: Arockiyasami This is a civil case involving a loan dispute. Velayutham (petitioner) testified during cross-examination, denying key allegations by the respondent. He claimed he lacked sufficient financial means to give the alleged loan of ₹15,70,000 on 03.11.2023, and stated the money came from his sister and wife. He denied providing any written security, documents, or authorization letters. The petitioner also disputed claims about gold ornaments being pledged with a finance company and denied various financial transactions attributed to him. The court recorded his testimony and the witness acknowledged the statement as recorded and read back in court. Outcome: The case remains under trial with cross-examination testimony recorded. No final order/judgment has been passed; the matter is still pending adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case