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.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVP100015082023
Filing Number
1501/2023
Filing Date
08-12-2023
Registration No
554/2023
Registration Date
08-12-2023
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balaji
Adv. Mr. K. Suresh
Respondent(s)
Purushothaman Advocate - RRK.Senthil, B.A.,B.L.,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts