sakthimurugan, U/s.138 of NI Act vs Tamilmani Advocate - K.K.Krishnan — 805/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 223. Disposed: Uncontested--Compounded on 18th June 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVR060022932024
e-Filing Number
11-11-2024
Filing Number
2275/2024
Filing Date
28-Nov-2024
Registration No
805/2024
Registration Date
28-Nov-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Sattur
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate No. II
Decision Date
18-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Compounded
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.sakthimurugan, U/s.138 of NI Act
Adv. THAMARAIKANNAN J
-
2.sakthimurugan
Adv. THAMARAIKANNAN J
Respondent(s)
-
1.Tamilmani Advocate - K.K.Krishnan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Jun-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
12-Jun-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
06-Jun-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
19-May-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
30-Apr-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
02-Apr-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
26-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
This document is a witness deposition (DW2) in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The witness, a 46-year-old schoolteacher, testified that she facilitated a ₹10 lakh loan transaction between petitioner Sakthimurugan and respondent Tamilmani Advocate in March 2022, wherein Sakthimurugan provided only ₹5 lakh initially and promised bank transfers for the remainder. Under cross-examination, the witness's credibility was significantly undermined—she admitted lacking direct knowledge of key details (lender's address, bank account information), having visited the location only once, and making contradictory statements about her familiarity with the parties involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
18-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
07-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
26-Feb-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
07-Feb-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
07-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
12-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
31-Dec-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
31-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
05-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
18-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
31-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
25-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
19-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
22-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
01-Aug-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
30-Jun-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
30-Jun-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
03-Apr-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
03-Jan-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No. II
-
28-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 805/2024
This document is a witness deposition (DW2) in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The witness, a 46-year-old schoolteacher, testified that she facilitated a ₹10 lakh loan transaction between petitioner Sakthimurugan and respondent Tamilmani Advocate in March 2022, wherein Sakthimurugan provided only ₹5 lakh initially and promised bank transfers for the remainder. Under cross-examination, the witness's credibility was significantly undermined—she admitted lacking direct knowledge of key details (lender's address, bank account information), having visited the location only once, and making contradictory statements about her familiarity with the parties involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts