K. Chellaiah vs Palani Advocate - E.T. Nandakumaran — 5301/2025
Case under Limitationact Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 18th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR010110052025
Filing Number
6974/2025
Filing Date
17-12-2025
Registration No
5301/2025
Registration Date
17-12-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K. Chellaiah
Adv. D. Raja
Respondent(s)
Palani Advocate - E.T. Nandakumaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Orders
Counter
Counter
Counter
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Orders |
| 12-03-2026 | Counter |
| 25-02-2026 | Counter |
| 07-02-2026 | Counter |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 5301/2025 The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Chellaiah's petition to condone an 18-day delay in filing his criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the petitioner's explanations—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from engaging counsel—to be probable and sufficiently explained, particularly given the relatively short delay period and the respondent's failure to contest the application. Applying the principle that delays should be liberally condoned to advance substantial justice absent gross negligence or bad faith, the court allowed the petition to enable the petitioner to pursue his appeal on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 5301/2025 The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Chellaiah's petition to condone an 18-day delay in filing his criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the petitioner's explanations—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from engaging counsel—to be probable and sufficiently explained, particularly given the relatively short delay period and the respondent's failure to contest the application. Applying the principle that delays should be liberally condoned to advance substantial justice absent gross negligence or bad faith, the court allowed the petition to enable the petitioner to pursue his appeal on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts