S. Ramanathan vs The Branch Manager, State Banck of India, Amaravathinagar Advocate - M. Sethuraman — 42/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI250000282024
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10/2024
Filing Date
02-01-2024
Registration No
42/2024
Registration Date
12-01-2024
Court
Additional District and Sessions Court, Udumalpet
Judge
5-IV Additional District Judge,Udumalapet
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Ramanathan
Adv. Jayabalan C
Respondent(s)
The Branch Manager, State Banck of India, Amaravathinagar Advocate - M. Sethuraman
The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Tiruppur
Adv. M. Sethuraman
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai
Adv. M. Sethuraman
Hearing History
Judge: 5-IV Additional District Judge,Udumalapet
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a court order from the 4th Additional District Consumer Court in Udumalaipet dated November 11, 2025 (Case No. 42/2024). The court examined the plaintiff's testimony regarding a banking dispute involving account closure, NPA classification, and alleged wrongful conduct by the defendant bank. The plaintiff claims compensation of ₹88,15,000 for damages, asserting the bank's actions caused financial and reputational harm, while the bank contends the account was properly classified as NPA due to loan payment defaults. The court recorded the witness examination and deferred the judgment to a subsequent hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a court order from the 4th Additional District Consumer Court in Udumalaipet dated November 11, 2025 (Case No. 42/2024). The court examined the plaintiff's testimony regarding a banking dispute involving account closure, NPA classification, and alleged wrongful conduct by the defendant bank. The plaintiff claims compensation of ₹88,15,000 for damages, asserting the bank's actions caused financial and reputational harm, while the bank contends the account was properly classified as NPA due to loan payment defaults. The court recorded the witness examination and deferred the judgment to a subsequent hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts