CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District vs M/s KARUPPASAMY JLG, rep by its President Gomathi and Secretary Nathiya — 41/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERVIIRULE1TO6ANDSECTION34. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 30th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA070001242026
e-Filing Number
07-01-2026
Filing Number
126/2026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
41/2026
Registration Date
12-Jan-2026
Court
Sub Court, Sankari
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Decreed with cost
Last updated 28-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District
Adv. ARUL PRAKASH
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/s KARUPPASAMY JLG, rep by its President Gomathi and Secretary Nathiya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary of Case 41/2026 The court held that Canara Bank is entitled to recover ₹1,76,516 from M/s Karuppasamy JLG (a self-help women's group) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date the loan became due until judgment, and 6% per annum thereafter until full payment, plus costs. The defendants failed to appear despite notice and were treated as contumacious; the bank's documentary evidence proved the loan was disbursed in 2017, repayment terms were agreed, and the defendants defaulted despite multiple revival letters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Subordinate Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Judgement
Subordinate Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 41/2026
Summary of Case 41/2026 The court held that Canara Bank is entitled to recover ₹1,76,516 from M/s Karuppasamy JLG (a self-help women's group) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date the loan became due until judgment, and 6% per annum thereafter until full payment, plus costs. The defendants failed to appear despite notice and were treated as contumacious; the bank's documentary evidence proved the loan was disbursed in 2017, repayment terms were agreed, and the defendants defaulted despite multiple revival letters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts