Balaji vs Purushothaman Advocate - RRK.Senthil, B.A.,B.L., — 554/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNVP100015082023

Filing Number

1501/2023

Filing Date

08-Dec-2023

Registration No

554/2023

Registration Date

08-Dec-2023

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate I

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Balaji

    Adv. Mr. K. Suresh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Purushothaman Advocate - RRK.Senthil, B.A.,B.L.,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 554/2023 Court Decision: The defendant (Purushothaman) was acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found the cheque case inadmissible as the complaint was filed before the mandatory 15-day notice period expired. Key Reasoning: Although the defendant acknowledged receiving a cheque for ₹7,50,000 as security for a loan, the complaint was filed on 03.11.2023—three days before the 15-day deadline ended. Under Sections 138-142 of the NI Act, such prematurely filed complaints are statutorily incompetent. Additionally, the complainant failed to prove the loan transaction with clear documentary evidence, and vague claims (such as "6 months ago") created reasonable doubt about the debt's existence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate I

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate I

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  8. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  9. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  11. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  12. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate I

  14. 03-Feb-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  15. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  16. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  17. 30-Dec-2025

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate I

  18. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  19. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  20. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  21. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  22. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  23. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  24. 30-Oct-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  25. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  26. 23-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  27. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  28. 23-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  29. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  30. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate I

  31. 19-Aug-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  32. 19-Aug-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate I

  33. 07-Aug-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  34. 07-Aug-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate I

  35. 29-Jul-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate I

  36. 19-Jul-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate I

  37. 15-Jul-2025

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate I

  38. 03-Jul-2025

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate I

  39. 17-Jun-2025

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate I

  40. 27-May-2025

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate I

  41. 16-May-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate I

  42. 22-Apr-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  43. 26-Mar-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  44. 26-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  45. 04-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  46. 03-Jan-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  47. 11-Dec-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  48. 15-Nov-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  49. 22-Oct-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  50. 04-Oct-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  51. 05-Sep-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  52. 05-Sep-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  53. 16-Aug-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate I

  54. 19-Jul-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  55. 15-Jun-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  56. 10-May-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  57. 26-Apr-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  58. 10-Apr-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  59. 26-Mar-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  60. 20-Mar-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  61. 16-Feb-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  62. 03-Feb-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  63. 22-Jan-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  64. 08-Jan-2024

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate I

  65. 08-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  66. 08-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 554/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 554/2023 Court Decision: The defendant (Purushothaman) was acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found the cheque case inadmissible as the complaint was filed before the mandatory 15-day notice period expired. Key Reasoning: Although the defendant acknowledged receiving a cheque for ₹7,50,000 as security for a loan, the complaint was filed on 03.11.2023—three days before the 15-day deadline ended. Under Sections 138-142 of the NI Act, such prematurely filed complaints are statutorily incompetent. Additionally, the complainant failed to prove the loan transaction with clear documentary evidence, and vague claims (such as "6 months ago") created reasonable doubt about the debt's existence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case