Canara Bank Annur Branch vs M Parvathi Advocate - Merrish.K.K — 88/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Order VII Rule 1. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNCB230023002024
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
19-11-2024
Filing Number
1458/2024
Filing Date
09-12-2024
Registration No
88/2025
Registration Date
27-02-2025
Court
Commercial Court in the Cadre of Senior Civil Judge, Coimbatore
Judge
1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Canara Bank Annur Branch
Adv. Senthil Kumar D
Respondent(s)
M Parvathi Advocate - Merrish.K.K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a Commercial Court case (C.O.S. No. 88 of 2025) from Coimbatore dated February 18, 2026, involving a bank loan dispute. The defendant (Mrs. Parvathi) gave her examination-in-chief testimony on affidavit, affirming its contents as truthful, followed by the plaintiff bank's cross-examination. The defendant denied receiving any loan of ₹5 lakh from Canara Bank, disputed the authenticity of signatures on loan documents, and claimed she never visited the bank or signed any agreements, contending the bank fabricated documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a Commercial Court case (C.O.S. No. 88 of 2025) from Coimbatore dated February 18, 2026, involving a bank loan dispute. The defendant (Mrs. Parvathi) gave her examination-in-chief testimony on affidavit, affirming its contents as truthful, followed by the plaintiff bank's cross-examination. The defendant denied receiving any loan of ₹5 lakh from Canara Bank, disputed the authenticity of signatures on loan documents, and claimed she never visited the bank or signed any agreements, contending the bank fabricated documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts