D.Somasundara Moorthy vs A.R.Rajamani Advocate - V.C.Ajeethkumar — 99/2021

Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 22. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNED050004472021

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

02nd June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

471/2021

Filing Date

24-08-2021

Registration No

99/2021

Registration Date

22-09-2021

Court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Acts & Sections

SuitsValuationAct Section 22

Petitioner(s)

D.Somasundara Moorthy

Adv. S.K.Sivakumar

Respondent(s)

A.R.Rajamani Advocate - V.C.Ajeethkumar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

10-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

27-01-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

20-01-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

03-12-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

17-11-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

16-02-2023
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The Sub Court, Sathy dismissed the interim application (I.A.1/2021) in Order Attachment before Judgment case (O.S.99/2021). The petitioner sought pre-judgment attachment of assets valued at ₹9,78,200/- against the defendant in a debt recovery suit involving a loan of ₹8,00,000/-. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for attachment, particularly regarding claims about the defendant's alleged misconduct and document fraud, and rejected the application with no order on costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sub Court, Sathy dismissed the interim application (I.A.1/2021) in Order Attachment before Judgment case (O.S.99/2021). The petitioner sought pre-judgment attachment of assets valued at ₹9,78,200/- against the defendant in a debt recovery suit involving a loan of ₹8,00,000/-. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for attachment, particularly regarding claims about the defendant's alleged misconduct and document fraud, and rejected the application with no order on costs. 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, Sathyamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case