K. Sadanandam vs Pradeep Kumar — 71/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTR360004942019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
71/2019
Filing Date
12-04-2017
Registration No
71/2019
Registration Date
09-05-2019
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K. Sadanandam
Adv. V. Thirumalai
Respondent(s)
Pradeep Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Questioning
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Questioning |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No: STC. 71/2019 | Court: District Civil and Criminal Court, Kummudipondi | Date: 12.01.2026 Outcome: The court examined the plaintiff's (Sathanantham) testimony in a civil suit involving a loan dispute. The plaintiff claimed he lent ₹4,45,000 to the defendant and filed multiple cases after cheques bounced. The court noted contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding the loan's purpose, the defendant's employment status with KRM Kumaragam Company, and service of notices. The court found the plaintiff's claims inconsistent and determined the suit lacked merit, ultimately dismissing the case as the plaintiff failed to establish his claims convincingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No: STC. 71/2019 | Court: District Civil and Criminal Court, Kummudipondi | Date: 12.01.2026 Outcome: The court examined the plaintiff's (Sathanantham) testimony in a civil suit involving a loan dispute. The plaintiff claimed he lent ₹4,45,000 to the defendant and filed multiple cases after cheques bounced. The court noted contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding the loan's purpose, the defendant's employment status with KRM Kumaragam Company, and service of notices. The court found the plaintiff's claims inconsistent and determined the suit lacked merit, ultimately dismissing the case as the plaintiff failed to establish his claims convincingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts