M/S Shriram Transport Finance company Ltd vs S Soosai — 16/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order 21. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 05th March 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNTI040000802025
e-Filing Number
20-01-2025
Filing Number
94/2025
Filing Date
27-01-2025
Registration No
16/2025
Registration Date
29-01-2025
Court
Principal Sub Court, Tiruppur
Judge
4-Principal Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
05th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S Shriram Transport Finance company Ltd
Adv. S. V. Kavipriya
Respondent(s)
S Soosai
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Principal Subordinate Judge
Disposed
For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim
For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim
For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim
For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-02-2026 | For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim |
| 09-01-2026 | For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim |
| 28-11-2025 | For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim |
| 10-10-2025 | For Attachment/ Arrest /Garnishee Proceedings / Deposit / Payment / Claim |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur dismissed Shriram Transport Finance Company's execution petition seeking attachment and sale of the judgment debtors' movable property under CPC Order 21 Rules 43 and 66. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to pay the required batta (court fee) and the respondents did not appear to represent themselves. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur dismissed Shriram Transport Finance Company's execution petition seeking attachment and sale of the judgment debtors' movable property under CPC Order 21 Rules 43 and 66. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to pay the required batta (court fee) and the respondents did not appear to represent themselves. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts