Sivakumar vs Rajendran — 1380/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 09th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVR020051442024
e-Filing Number
16-12-2024
Filing Number
4750/2024
Filing Date
19-Dec-2024
Registration No
1380/2024
Registration Date
19-Dec-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Conviction
Last updated 19-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sivakumar
Adv. Duraisaravanan S
Respondent(s)
-
1.Rajendran
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court in Srivilliputtur convicted K. Rajendran under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 for 100 bags of paddy purchased on October 10, 2024, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court rejected the accused's defense that he purchased the paddy from Manoharan instead, finding it implausible and lacking corroborating evidence. The accused was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
06-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
02-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
24-Feb-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
18-Feb-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
12-Feb-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
12-Feb-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
28-Jan-2026
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
05-Jan-2026
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
15-Dec-2025
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
10-Dec-2025
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
02-Dec-2025
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
24-Nov-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
17-Nov-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
10-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
06-Nov-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
27-Oct-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
15-Oct-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
15-Oct-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
25-Sep-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
16-Sep-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
08-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
21-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
11-Aug-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
17-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
01-Jul-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
01-Jul-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
16-Jun-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
03-Jun-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
27-May-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
27-May-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
22-May-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
12-May-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
08-May-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
08-Apr-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
13-Mar-2025
Service Pending-Warrant
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
13-Feb-2025
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate(FTC)
-
19-Dec-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 1380/2024
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court in Srivilliputtur convicted K. Rajendran under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 for 100 bags of paddy purchased on October 10, 2024, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court rejected the accused's defense that he purchased the paddy from Manoharan instead, finding it implausible and lacking corroborating evidence. The accused was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts