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
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
Petitioner(s)
G.K. Ramesh
Adv. P.Chandrasekar
Respondent(s)
S. Velavendan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Orders
Counter
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Orders |
| 12-03-2026 | Counter |
| 09-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts