SREE HANUMAN COTTON SPINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SAGAR SUDHAKAR SETTY vs MS SPINNERS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER — 4/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section US22OFTAMILNADUCOURTFEEANDSUITVALUATIONACT. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 09-Apr-2026 this date has passed

COS - Commercial Original Suit

CNR: TNVR010006932025

e-Filing Number

22-01-2025

Filing Number

132/2025

Filing Date

05-Feb-2025

Registration No

4/2025

Registration Date

09-Apr-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Last updated 19-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section US22OFTAMILNADUCOURTFEEANDSUITVALUATIONACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SREE HANUMAN COTTON SPINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SAGAR SUDHAKAR SETTY

    Adv. BOJARAJAN M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MS SPINNERS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER

Case History

  1. 09-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

    Summary: In Civil Suit No. 04/2025 dated 11.02.2026, the court ruled on a commercial dispute involving cotton bales between a partnership firm (plaintiff) and the defendants. The court determined that the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 17,31,963/- (calculated at Rs. 12,872 per quintal for 185 quintals of cotton) to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants to pay the court fees related to the case. The defendant's cross-examination testimony was admitted and verified as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 30-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 20-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 08-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 17-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  13. 27-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  14. 30-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  15. 25-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  17. 23-Sep-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  18. 10-Sep-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  19. 20-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  20. 12-Aug-2025

    IAView PDF

  21. 12-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 11-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  23. 17-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  24. 08-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  25. 03-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  26. 21-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  27. 11-Jun-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  28. 09-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 05-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Civil Suit No. 04/2025 dated 11.02.2026, the court ruled on a commercial dispute involving cotton bales between a partnership firm (plaintiff) and the defendants. The court determined that the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 17,31,963/- (calculated at Rs. 12,872 per quintal for 185 quintals of cotton) to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants to pay the court fees related to the case. The defendant's cross-examination testimony was admitted and verified as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case