Manimaran Represented by its Power Agent R. kannan vs Karuppaiah — 15/2023
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section u/s33. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV140001102023
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
38/2023
Filing Date
23-01-2023
Registration No
15/2023
Registration Date
25-01-2023
Court
Sub Court, Manamadurai
Judge
1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manimaran Represented by its Power Agent R. kannan
Adv. Mr. C.Kannan
Respondent(s)
Karuppaiah
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 18-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 10-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 13-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 03-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: O.S.No.15/2023, Manamelkudi District Court, dated 05.02.2025 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim for recovery of ₹2,00,000/- allegedly loaned to the defendant. The court determined that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of the loan transaction and rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding unauthorized actions taken on his behalf. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: O.S.No.15/2023, Manamelkudi District Court, dated 05.02.2025 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim for recovery of ₹2,00,000/- allegedly loaned to the defendant. The court determined that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of the loan transaction and rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding unauthorized actions taken on his behalf. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts