PENTACLE NEWYORK COMPANY vs NSR DECORS Advocate - Elangovan M — 282/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Order 7 Rule 1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th March 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNCB230007022025
e-Filing Number
29-07-2025
Filing Number
718/2025
Filing Date
06-08-2025
Registration No
282/2025
Registration Date
06-08-2025
Court
Commercial Court in the Cadre of Senior Civil Judge, Coimbatore
Judge
1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PENTACLE NEWYORK COMPANY
Adv. Malini S
Respondent(s)
NSR DECORS Advocate - Elangovan M
Hearing History
Judge: 1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Commercial Court in Coimbatore dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking recovery of ₹3,57,000 from the defendant. The court found that the two Memoranda of Understanding (agreements) between the parties contained unconscionable and unenforceable clauses—including requirements to handover banking credentials and control of accounts—that violated banking confidentiality norms and public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted the plaintiff failed to deliver the promised designs to the defendant, further undermining the enforceability of the agreements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Commercial Court in Coimbatore dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking recovery of ₹3,57,000 from the defendant. The court found that the two Memoranda of Understanding (agreements) between the parties contained unconscionable and unenforceable clauses—including requirements to handover banking credentials and control of accounts—that violated banking confidentiality norms and public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted the plaintiff failed to deliver the promised designs to the defendant, further undermining the enforceability of the agreements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts