K. Chellaiah vs Palani Advocate - E.T. Nandakumaran — 5304/2025
Case under Limitationact Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 18th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR010110102025
Filing Number
6979/2025
Filing Date
17-12-2025
Registration No
5304/2025
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: 5304/2025 The Principal 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 Chellaiah's reasons—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from arranging funds and contacting counsel—constituted "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, applying the principle that delays should be liberally condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or bad faith is shown. The court emphasized that the cause of delay matters more than its length, and that no prejudice would result to the respondent, who retained full opportunity to defend in the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 5304/2025 The Principal 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 Chellaiah's reasons—poor health and financial constraints preventing him from arranging funds and contacting counsel—constituted "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, applying the principle that delays should be liberally condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or bad faith is shown. The court emphasized that the cause of delay matters more than its length, and that no prejudice would result to the respondent, who retained full opportunity to defend in 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