G.K. Ramesh vs S. Velavendan — 561/2026

Case under Limitationact Section 5. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 27th March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTR010011672026

Case disposed

Filing Number

763/2026

Filing Date

09-02-2026

Registration No

561/2026

Registration Date

09-02-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

LimitationAct Section 5

Petitioner(s)

G.K. Ramesh

Adv. P.Chandrasekar

Respondent(s)

S. Velavendan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

27-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Orders

12-03-2026

Counter

09-02-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Copy of Order

Case Summary: G.K. Ramesh v. S. Velavendan (561/2026) The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed G.K. Ramesh's petition to condone a 20-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Ramesh was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹7,00,000 in compensation; he attributed the delay to his work as a driver traveling between states and financial constraints in accessing counsel. The court found the delay acceptable given its modest length, the reasonable explanation, and the interest of justice, particularly noting that no prejudice would result to the respondent who would have opportunity to defend during the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: G.K. Ramesh v. S. Velavendan (561/2026) The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed G.K. Ramesh's petition to condone a 20-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Ramesh was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹7,00,000 in compensation; he attributed the delay to his work as a driver traveling between states and financial constraints in accessing counsel. The court found the delay acceptable given its modest length, the reasonable explanation, and the interest of justice, particularly noting that no prejudice would result to the respondent who would have opportunity to defend during the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case