Foushiyama Ansari Ahamed vs Venkatachalam — 465/2019
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED010024272019
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2011/2019
Filing Date
19-11-2019
Registration No
465/2019
Registration Date
19-11-2019
Court
Principal District Court, Erode
Judge
2-I Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Foushiyama Ansari Ahamed
Adv. Ramesh.R
sajitha Sabira Shiyath Ali
Minor.Ahamed Johan. repby his mother Sajitha Sabira
Minor. Thamjith ahamed, rep by his mother Sajitha sabira
Respondent(s)
Venkatachalam
V.Sathya
B.Punithapriya
Srinivasa Raja-Prop Adayar Ananda Bhavan
District Collector , Erode
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge
Evidence
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 17-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 09-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 07-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In O.S. No. 465/2019 (dated 13.3.2026), the court examined PW3's testimony regarding business operations and GST compliance. The court found that PW3's claims of lack of knowledge about the deceased's business details, GST filings, and financial records were not credible, and rejected the assertion that she was merely a relative without involvement in the business operations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In O.S. No. 465/2019 (dated 13.3.2026), the court examined PW3's testimony regarding business operations and GST compliance. The court found that PW3's claims of lack of knowledge about the deceased's business details, GST filings, and financial records were not credible, and rejected the assertion that she was merely a relative without involvement in the business operations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts