State Bank of India, Nambiyur Branch, Rep by Branch Manager vs R. Periyasamy — 477/2023

Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 22. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.

Judgement Next hearing 28-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNED080005442023

Filing Number

331/2023

Filing Date

27-Jul-2023

Registration No

477/2023

Registration Date

01-Aug-2023

Court

Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam

Judge

1-III Additional District Judge

Last updated 27-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Suits Valuation Act Section 22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Bank of India, Nambiyur Branch, Rep by Branch Manager

    Adv. N.M.Shanmugam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R. Periyasamy

Case History

  1. 28-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    III Additional District Judge

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    III Additional District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    The Third Additional District Court heard cross-examination in O.S. No. 477/2023 on February 7, 2026. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the higher interest rate (11.10% instead of 7.5%) and other loan-related claims, finding insufficient documentary evidence and improper calculation of charges. The court dismissed the case, holding that the defendant is not entitled to the excess interest claimed and that only 7.5% interest is recoverable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    III Additional District Judge

  10. 05-Dec-2025

    Await Reports

    III Additional District Judge

  11. 05-Nov-2025

    Await Reports

    III Additional District Judge

  12. 13-Oct-2025

    Mediation

    III Additional District Judge

  13. 08-Sep-2025

    Mediation

    III Additional District Judge

  14. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  15. 18-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  16. 03-Jul-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    III Additional District Judge

  18. 07-Apr-2025

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  19. 21-Feb-2025

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  20. 04-Dec-2024

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  21. 16-Oct-2024

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  22. 14-Aug-2024

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  23. 27-Jun-2024

    Trial

    III Additional District Judge

  24. 19-Apr-2024

    Issues

    III Additional District Judge

  25. 14-Mar-2024

    Issues

    III Additional District Judge

  26. 02-Feb-2024

    Issues

    III Additional District Judge

  27. 18-Dec-2023

    Issues

    III Additional District Judge

  28. 02-Dec-2023

    Written Statement

    III Additional District Judge

  29. 02-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    III Additional District Judge

  30. 10-Oct-2023

    Written Statement

    III Additional District Judge

  31. 02-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    III Additional District Judge

  32. 09-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 27-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 477/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Third Additional District Court heard cross-examination in O.S. No. 477/2023 on February 7, 2026. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the higher interest rate (11.10% instead of 7.5%) and other loan-related claims, finding insufficient documentary evidence and improper calculation of charges. The court dismissed the case, holding that the defendant is not entitled to the excess interest claimed and that only 7.5% interest is recoverable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case