M/s.The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Abdul Razak (Deased) — 100034/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 21(1(2). Status: Steps. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNCB150003252017
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100034/2017
Filing Date
10-11-2017
Registration No
100034/2017
Registration Date
10-11-2017
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai
Judge
1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s.The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.
Adv. T.Paul Pandi, M.D.No.6568/94
Respondent(s)
Abdul Razak (Deased)
Sidqu
Mohammed
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Steps | |
| 10-03-2026 | Steps | |
| 24-02-2026 | Steps | |
| 18-02-2026 | Steps | |
| 10-02-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif Court at Walparai dismissed the petition filed under CPC Order 3 Rules 1-2 (Execution Petition No. 34/2017). The petition sought to permit Manivannan to act as authorized agent for defendant Muhammad in execution proceedings of Original Suit No. 28/2004. The court found the power of attorney document defective (only photocopy submitted, not certified copy), noted conflicting references to different case numbers (OS 2/2004 and OS 28/2004), and determined that the agent lacked proper authority to represent the defendant in execution matters, thus dismissing the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Munsif Court at Walparai dismissed the petition filed under CPC Order 3 Rules 1-2 (Execution Petition No. 34/2017). The petition sought to permit Manivannan to act as authorized agent for defendant Muhammad in execution proceedings of Original Suit No. 28/2004. The court found the power of attorney document defective (only photocopy submitted, not certified copy), noted conflicting references to different case numbers (OS 2/2004 and OS 28/2004), and determined that the agent lacked proper authority to represent the defendant in execution matters, thus dismissing the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts