JEEVANANDHAM vs SATHIYANATHAN — 365/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138142. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTU020035422022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3539/2022
Filing Date
21-04-2022
Registration No
365/2022
Registration Date
22-04-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JEEVANANDHAM
Adv. PALANI D
Respondent(s)
SATHIYANATHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 27-02-2026 | Judgement | |
| 19-02-2026 | Judgement | |
| 13-02-2026 | Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding him not guilty of dishonoring a ₹9,00,000 cheque. Although the accused's signature on the cheque was established and a presumption of legally enforceable debt arose, the defense raised a probable defense that the cheque was issued as security for a partnership firm ("Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance"), shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove an actual debt transaction. The complainant failed to produce documentary evidence of the loan or money transaction, resulting in acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding him not guilty of dishonoring a ₹9,00,000 cheque. Although the accused's signature on the cheque was established and a presumption of legally enforceable debt arose, the defense raised a probable defense that the cheque was issued as security for a partnership firm ("Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance"), shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove an actual debt transaction. The complainant failed to produce documentary evidence of the loan or money transaction, resulting in acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts