CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District vs M Suresh Mani — 4/2026

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section UNDERORDERVIIRULE1 TO 6 ANDSECTION. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 28th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA070012022025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

12-12-2025

Filing Number

1320/2025

Filing Date

15-12-2025

Registration No

4/2026

Registration Date

05-01-2026

Court

Sub Court, Sankari

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

28th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Decreed with cost

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section UNDERORDERVIIRULE1 TO 6 ANDSECTION

Petitioner(s)

CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District

Adv. CS GOWTHAM PRASATH

Respondent(s)

M Suresh Mani

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

28-04-2026

Disposed

15-04-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Ex-Parte Evidence

09-02-2026

Issue of Service

05-01-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

28-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Sangagiri Subordinate Court decreed that the defendant (M. Suresh Mani) is liable to pay Canara Bank ₹2,20,380 as outstanding agricultural loan debt with interest at 9% per annum from the date of default until the judgment date, and 6% thereafter until full payment, providing two months for settlement. The court found the bank's claims substantiated through documentary evidence and the defendant's testimony as an ex-parte defendant, while the defendant failed to appear and contest the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sangagiri Subordinate Court decreed that the defendant (M. Suresh Mani) is liable to pay Canara Bank ₹2,20,380 as outstanding agricultural loan debt with interest at 9% per annum from the date of default until the judgment date, and 6% thereafter until full payment, providing two months for settlement. The court found the bank's claims substantiated through documentary evidence and the defendant's testimony as an ex-parte defendant, while the defendant failed to appear and contest the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Sankari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case