K. Chellaiah vs Palani Advocate - E.T. Nandakumaran — 5302/2025
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 18th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR010110072025
Filing Number
6976/2025
Filing Date
17-Dec-2025
Registration No
5302/2025
Registration Date
17-Dec-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Allowed
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.K. Chellaiah
Adv. D. Raja
Respondent(s)
-
1.Palani Advocate - E.T. Nandakumaran
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: K. Chellaiah v. Palani Advocate (CMP 5302/2025) The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Chellaiah's petition to condone an 18-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the petitioner's reasons—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from engaging counsel—constituted sufficient cause for the delay, citing the principle that "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice where no gross negligence or bad faith is shown. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Counter
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Counter
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Counter
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
Counter
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 5302/2025
Case Summary: K. Chellaiah v. Palani Advocate (CMP 5302/2025) The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Chellaiah's petition to condone an 18-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the petitioner's reasons—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from engaging counsel—constituted sufficient cause for the delay, citing the principle that "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice where no gross negligence or bad faith is shown. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts