CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District vs M Suresh Mani — 4/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section UNDERORDERVIIRULE1 TO 6 ANDSECTION. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 28th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA070012022025
e-Filing Number
12-12-2025
Filing Number
1320/2025
Filing Date
15-Dec-2025
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
05-Jan-2026
Court
Sub Court, Sankari
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Decreed with cost
Last updated 08-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District
Adv. CS GOWTHAM PRASATH
Respondent(s)
-
1.M Suresh Mani
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
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.
-
28-Apr-2026
Disposed
Subordinate Judge
-
15-Apr-2026
Judgement
Subordinate Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
09-Feb-2026
Issue of Service
Subordinate Judge
-
05-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 4/2026
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.
Explore other courts