LOGANATHAN vs JABBACHRISTOPER — 853/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVL240036572022
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
3655/2022
Filing Date
24-08-2022
Registration No
853/2022
Registration Date
24-08-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Katpadi
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LOGANATHAN
Adv. RAVI K R
Respondent(s)
JABBACHRISTOPER
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate,Katpadi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 03-10-2025 | Evidence |
| 19-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this cross-examination of Witness 1 (S.T.C. No. 853/2022, dated 07.11.2023), the court examined the witness's testimony regarding a money lending dispute involving an alleged loan of Rs. 20 with interest given on 12.12.2020. The witness's claims regarding the promissory note, the provision of two receipts as security by the defendant, and allegations against the defendant's father were largely rejected as untruthful. The court found inconsistencies in the witness's account and ruled that the defendant's position regarding the loan transaction was more credible than the plaintiff's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this cross-examination of Witness 1 (S.T.C. No. 853/2022, dated 07.11.2023), the court examined the witness's testimony regarding a money lending dispute involving an alleged loan of Rs. 20 with interest given on 12.12.2020. The witness's claims regarding the promissory note, the provision of two receipts as security by the defendant, and allegations against the defendant's father were largely rejected as untruthful. The court found inconsistencies in the witness's account and ruled that the defendant's position regarding the loan transaction was more credible than the plaintiff's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts