Karur Vysya Bank vs Kanimalar Rathinasamy — 85/2025
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 12th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED110003542025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
360/2025
Filing Date
18-07-2025
Registration No
85/2025
Registration Date
24-07-2025
Court
Sub Court, Perundurai
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Karur Vysya Bank
Adv. MUTHU V
Respondent(s)
Kanimalar Rathinasamy
Rathinasamy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Ex-Parte Evidence
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 17-12-2025 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 18-11-2025 | Steps | |
| 26-09-2025 | Steps |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness statement (PW 1) recorded in the Assistant Sessions Court, Perundurai (Case No. 131/2024) dated March 10, 2026, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witness, a 60-year-old man from Tindukkal village, testified about his experience of being kidnapped and assaulted by four accused persons (Ragu, Aravind, Senthil Kumar, and Kanakasabapathi) in September 2017. The witness detailed how the accused abducted him, demanded ransom of ₹5 lakhs, assaulted him with weapons, and caused him injuries requiring 15 days of hospitalization, but no cross-examination from the defense was recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness statement (PW 1) recorded in the Assistant Sessions Court, Perundurai (Case No. 131/2024) dated March 10, 2026, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witness, a 60-year-old man from Tindukkal village, testified about his experience of being kidnapped and assaulted by four accused persons (Ragu, Aravind, Senthil Kumar, and Kanakasabapathi) in September 2017. The witness detailed how the accused abducted him, demanded ransom of ₹5 lakhs, assaulted him with weapons, and caused him injuries requiring 15 days of hospitalization, but no cross-examination from the defense was recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts