M/S Jai Hind Wire Rod Mills Ltd, Salem vs IDBI Bank, Rep by authorised officer, Chennai Advocate - Adv G.Siva Raja Boopathy — 342/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 26, order VII, Rule 1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK010082432023
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
1134/2023
Filing Date
15-11-2023
Registration No
342/2023
Registration Date
15-11-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S Jai Hind Wire Rod Mills Ltd, Salem
Adv. Adv L.Rajathurai
Respondent(s)
IDBI Bank, Rep by authorised officer, Chennai Advocate - Adv G.Siva Raja Boopathy
The Branch Manager, IDBI Bank
Adv. Adv G.Siva Raja Boopathy
R.Maheshkumar
Adv. Exparte
P.Balakrishnan
Adv. P.Selvaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In O.S. No. 342/2023 before the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, the court examined Witness 2 (P.W. 2) on 09.03.2026. The witness underwent cross-examination by the 4th defendant regarding claims of employment as an electric operator and disputed property ownership, with inconsistencies noted in the witness's testimony regarding documentary evidence and land registration details. Cross-examination of defendants 1 and 2 yielded no further examination, and the case was adjourned for continued proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In O.S. No. 342/2023 before the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, the court examined Witness 2 (P.W. 2) on 09.03.2026. The witness underwent cross-examination by the 4th defendant regarding claims of employment as an electric operator and disputed property ownership, with inconsistencies noted in the witness's testimony regarding documentary evidence and land registration details. Cross-examination of defendants 1 and 2 yielded no further examination, and the case was adjourned for continued proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts