SANTHAKUMAR vs THAYALAN M — 1272/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 142. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 21st April 2026 Date Not Updated.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTU020144322022
Next Hearing
21st April 2026 Date Not Updated
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
14426/2022
Filing Date
24-11-2022
Registration No
1272/2022
Registration Date
24-11-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANTHAKUMAR
Adv. ARIVUSUDAR A
Respondent(s)
THAYALAN M
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: STC.No. 1272/2022 | Date: 01.09.2025 The court completed the cross-examination of witness A. Sa. 2 Thiru. Bala Vinayak Shandar. The witness denied various allegations made by the opposing party, including claims about property documents, receipt of money (₹5 lakh), and involvement in a forged promissory note allegedly given by the complainant. The court found the witness testimony inconsistent in several material particulars, particularly regarding a letter sent to the district education officer and admission of false statements about the disputed cheque/promissory note. The case involves allegations of fraud relating to a mortgage document that was allegedly misused by the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: STC.No. 1272/2022 | Date: 01.09.2025 The court completed the cross-examination of witness A. Sa. 2 Thiru. Bala Vinayak Shandar. The witness denied various allegations made by the opposing party, including claims about property documents, receipt of money (₹5 lakh), and involvement in a forged promissory note allegedly given by the complainant. The court found the witness testimony inconsistent in several material particulars, particularly regarding a letter sent to the district education officer and admission of false statements about the disputed cheque/promissory note. The case involves allegations of fraud relating to a mortgage document that was allegedly misused by the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts