M.Pandi vs Amutha — 340/2023

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25D. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG070011962023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1141/2023

Filing Date

21-11-2023

Registration No

340/2023

Registration Date

24-11-2023

Court

Sub Court, Palani

Judge

2-Additional Sub Judge

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 25D
IA/1/2024 Classification : OS Section M.PandiAmutha

Petitioner(s)

M.Pandi

Adv. C.Kumarasamy

Respondent(s)

Amutha

V.Kavitha

Adv. Thiru. C. Ramamoorthy 525/2014

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional Sub Judge

16-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

Judgement

02-04-2026

Judgement

27-03-2026

Arguments

16-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Additional Subordinate Court, Palani dismissed the plaintiff M. Pandian's suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,52,500 as loan amount and Rs. 3,00,000 with 12% interest against defendant K. Amudha, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transaction of June 5, 2022 through credible evidence and witness testimony. The court ruled that the signature on the loan bond (promissory note) was not established as belonging to the first defendant, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Subordinate Court, Palani dismissed the plaintiff M. Pandian's suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,52,500 as loan amount and Rs. 3,00,000 with 12% interest against defendant K. Amudha, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transaction of June 5, 2022 through credible evidence and witness testimony. The court ruled that the signature on the loan bond (promissory note) was not established as belonging to the first defendant, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Palani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case