Rosalind Kayalvizhi vs Chirts College of Art and Science Rep by Fr Harry Williams — 11/2024
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(3)and389(3). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th April 2026.
CRLA - Criminal Appeal
CNR: TNTR010006892024
e-Filing Number
09-01-2024
Filing Number
588/2024
Filing Date
22-Jan-2024
Registration No
11/2024
Registration Date
22-Jan-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
3-I Additional District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rosalind Kayalvizhi
Adv. Ramachandiran M
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chirts College of Art and Science Rep by Fr Harry Williams
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: Rosalind Kayalvizhi v. Christ College of Art and Science Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rosalind Kayalvizhi was found guilty of cheque dishonour and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a compensation order of Rs. 35,10,000, or an additional three months imprisonment in default. Key Facts: The appellant received Rs. 35,10,000 from the college through RTGS transfers based on a memorandum promising to secure government grants. After failing to repay despite demands and legal notices, she issued four cheques dated 01.08.2022 totaling Rs. 35,10,000, which were dishonoured on 18.08.2022 for insufficient funds. The appellant's defence that the cheques were issued as security lacked evidentiary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Judgement
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
03-Mar-2026
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Dec-2025
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Nov-2025
Mediation
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Sep-2025
Mediation
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Mediation
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Jul-2025
Mediation
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Jun-2025
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Apr-2025
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Mar-2025
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Jan-2025
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Dec-2024
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Nov-2024
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Oct-2024
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Oct-2024
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Aug-2024
Arguments
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Jun-2024
Issue of Service
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Apr-2024
Issue of Service
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Feb-2024
Issue of Service
I Additional District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2024
Issue of Service
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
22-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jan-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 11/2024
Case Summary: Rosalind Kayalvizhi v. Christ College of Art and Science Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rosalind Kayalvizhi was found guilty of cheque dishonour and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a compensation order of Rs. 35,10,000, or an additional three months imprisonment in default. Key Facts: The appellant received Rs. 35,10,000 from the college through RTGS transfers based on a memorandum promising to secure government grants. After failing to repay despite demands and legal notices, she issued four cheques dated 01.08.2022 totaling Rs. 35,10,000, which were dishonoured on 18.08.2022 for insufficient funds. The appellant's defence that the cheques were issued as security lacked evidentiary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts