P. Veerasamy vs N. Mahamuni Advocate - V.Permal — 210/2024

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG190004602024

Filing Number

453/2024

Filing Date

08-Aug-2024

Registration No

210/2024

Registration Date

13-Aug-2024

Court

Sub Court, Oddanchathiram

Judge

3-Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section Section 22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P. Veerasamy

    Adv. M. Muthukumaran

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.N. Mahamuni Advocate - V.Permal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: OS 210/2024 Court: Sub Court, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner (P. Veerasamy) in a promissory note case. The respondent (N. Mahamuni) must pay the petitioner ₹4,58,617 (principal of ₹3,50,000 plus costs), with interest at 9% per annum from the filing date (07.08.2024) until judgment date (27.03.2026), and 6% per annum thereafter until payment, along with court costs. The court rejected the respondent's defense that the promissory note was forged, finding the evidence insufficient and applying statutory presumptions against the defaulting defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  11. 09-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  12. 17-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  13. 17-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  14. 29-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  15. 27-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  16. 24-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  18. 09-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  19. 20-Sep-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  20. 22-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  21. 05-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  22. 17-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  23. 18-Jun-2025

    Mediation

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  24. 25-Apr-2025

    Mediation

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  25. 07-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  26. 04-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  27. 03-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  28. 05-Dec-2024

    Mediation

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  29. 18-Oct-2024

    Mediation

    Subordinate Judge, Oddanchathiram

  30. 13-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 08-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 210/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 210/2024 Court: Sub Court, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner (P. Veerasamy) in a promissory note case. The respondent (N. Mahamuni) must pay the petitioner ₹4,58,617 (principal of ₹3,50,000 plus costs), with interest at 9% per annum from the filing date (07.08.2024) until judgment date (27.03.2026), and 6% per annum thereafter until payment, along with court costs. The court rejected the respondent's defense that the promissory note was forged, finding the evidence insufficient and applying statutory presumptions against the defaulting defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case