JANAKIRAMAN D vs SAMPATH D Advocate - BALU V — 123/2015
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 42a27c. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230000412015
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
123/2015
Filing Date
10-07-2015
Registration No
123/2015
Registration Date
15-07-2015
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JANAKIRAMAN D
Adv. JOTHIRAM V
Respondent(s)
SAMPATH D Advocate - BALU V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 15-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 27-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 24-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 13-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS.No.123/2015 Court: District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District Parties: Janakiraman D (Petitioner) v. Sampath D & Advocate Balu V (Respondents) Order: This is a witness deposition record (PW1 testimony dated 27 November 2025) in an Original Suit concerning a disputed hire-purchase agreement. The witness testified regarding a property pledge transaction from 18 October 2013 for Rs. 90,000, with Rs. 80,000 paid upfront and Rs. 10,000 balance due within 36 months. The witness contradicted several assertions in cross-examination, denying claims that he was deceived or that he fraudulently created documents. The court's final order appears to reject arguments for case dismissal, upholding the suit's validity under dispute resolution law despite procedural objections raised by the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS.No.123/2015 Court: District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District Parties: Janakiraman D (Petitioner) v. Sampath D & Advocate Balu V (Respondents) Order: This is a witness deposition record (PW1 testimony dated 27 November 2025) in an Original Suit concerning a disputed hire-purchase agreement. The witness testified regarding a property pledge transaction from 18 October 2013 for Rs. 90,000, with Rs. 80,000 paid upfront and Rs. 10,000 balance due within 36 months. The witness contradicted several assertions in cross-examination, denying claims that he was deceived or that he fraudulently created documents. The court's final order appears to reject arguments for case dismissal, upholding the suit's validity under dispute resolution law despite procedural objections raised by the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts