Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Shamim Ahmed, J
Stalin Jebadhas – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner borrowed money and issued cheques which bounced. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the petitioner requested additional time for compliance with prior court orders. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. the delay was not condoned, resulting in dismissal of the petitions. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. final ruling confirmed the dismissal of the criminal revision petitions. (Para 26 , 27) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.G.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Titus, learned counsel for the respondent.
2.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 833 days in filing the Criminal Revision Cases bearing Crl.R.C(MD)SR.Nos.20369 and 20370 of 2025.
3.The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of these Petitions and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-
a) The petitioner totally borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent on various occasions and had given four cheques, bearing cheque Nos.539226, 539227, 539228, and 539231, dated 23.02.2025, 25.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 respectively for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
