Perumal vs Eswaran Advocate - T Thirupppathiraju — 666/2024
Case under --- Section 138 Act. Status: Await Records. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVR020033522024
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
e-Filing Number
26-07-2024
Filing Number
3092/2024
Filing Date
29-07-2024
Registration No
666/2024
Registration Date
29-07-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Perumal
Adv. Senthilkumar P
Respondent(s)
Eswaran Advocate - T Thirupppathiraju
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
Await Records
Await Records
Await Records
Await Records
Await Records
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Await Records |
| 06-03-2026 | Await Records |
| 23-02-2026 | Await Records |
| 05-02-2026 | Await Records |
| 22-01-2026 | Await Records |
Interim Orders
Summary In this Tamil court order (STC No. 666/2024, dated 25.06.2025), the Court examined the cross-examination testimony of PW.1 (Perumal) regarding a financial dispute involving alleged unauthorized lending at 24% interest through an organization called Besalvajothi Works. The witness's testimony concerning payment receipts, cheques, bank transfers, and threatening behavior was largely challenged and discredited through cross-examination. The court found the witness's statements regarding the full repayment of ₹35,45,380/- and claims about threats and police involvement to be inconsistent and unsubstantiated, ultimately accepting certain parts of the written statement while rejecting major portions of the witness's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this Tamil court order (STC No. 666/2024, dated 25.06.2025), the Court examined the cross-examination testimony of PW.1 (Perumal) regarding a financial dispute involving alleged unauthorized lending at 24% interest through an organization called Besalvajothi Works. The witness's testimony concerning payment receipts, cheques, bank transfers, and threatening behavior was largely challenged and discredited through cross-examination. The court found the witness's statements regarding the full repayment of ₹35,45,380/- and claims about threats and police involvement to be inconsistent and unsubstantiated, ultimately accepting certain parts of the written statement while rejecting major portions of the witness's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts