G.Subramanian vs T.Chidambaranathan Advocate - Adv S.Ramachandran — 329/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 26. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK010088892022
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
1736/2022
Filing Date
06-12-2022
Registration No
329/2022
Registration Date
13-12-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G.Subramanian
Adv. Adv P.Selvaraj
Respondent(s)
T.Chidambaranathan Advocate - Adv S.Ramachandran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
IA Pending
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 19-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 329/2022) from the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil dated 04.07.2025, involving a mortgage deed dispute. The court examined witness D.W.1 (Sithambara Nathan) regarding a loan transaction of ₹12,00,000 with ₹3,00,000 interest, registered as ₹15,00,000 in the mortgage deed. The court found discrepancies in the defendant's testimony regarding the actual loan amount and interest paid, and rejected his claim that he owed ₹17,03,724. The court determined that based on evidence, the defendant owes ₹15,00,000 plus interest of ₹3,00,000 as stated in the mortgage deed, and the interest claim of ₹3,00,000 cannot be enforced as a lump sum penalty without clear documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 329/2022) from the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil dated 04.07.2025, involving a mortgage deed dispute. The court examined witness D.W.1 (Sithambara Nathan) regarding a loan transaction of ₹12,00,000 with ₹3,00,000 interest, registered as ₹15,00,000 in the mortgage deed. The court found discrepancies in the defendant's testimony regarding the actual loan amount and interest paid, and rejected his claim that he owed ₹17,03,724. The court determined that based on evidence, the defendant owes ₹15,00,000 plus interest of ₹3,00,000 as stated in the mortgage deed, and the interest claim of ₹3,00,000 cannot be enforced as a lump sum penalty without clear documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts