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.

Evidence Next hearing 21-Apr-2026 this date has passed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTU020144322022

Filing Number

14426/2022

Filing Date

24-Nov-2022

Registration No

1272/2022

Registration Date

24-Nov-2022

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

Last updated 27-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 142

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTHAKUMAR

    Adv. ARIVUSUDAR A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THAYALAN M

Case History

  1. 21-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  5. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  7. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  9. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  10. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  11. 10-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  12. 30-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  13. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  14. 02-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  15. 01-Sep-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

    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.

  16. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  17. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  18. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  19. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  20. 16-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  21. 09-Jul-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  22. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  23. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  24. 18-Jun-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  25. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  26. 28-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  27. 23-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  28. 24-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  29. 26-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  30. 29-Jan-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  31. 29-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  32. 27-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  33. 23-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  34. 25-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  35. 21-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  36. 12-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  37. 20-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  38. 17-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  39. 14-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  40. 07-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  41. 03-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  42. 23-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  43. 08-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  44. 19-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  45. 20-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  46. 23-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  47. 18-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  48. 07-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  49. 17-May-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  50. 12-Apr-2023

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  51. 08-Mar-2023

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  52. 01-Feb-2023

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  53. 19-Dec-2022

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

  54. 24-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 24-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1272/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case