Parathasarathy and 4 others vs G.Ramesh — 2/2021
Case under Provincial Insolvency Act,1920 Section sec-9. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
IP - Insolvency Petition
CNR: TNVR010025662021
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
Filing Number
595/2021
Filing Date
01-09-2021
Registration No
2/2021
Registration Date
24-09-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
10-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Parathasarathy and 4 others
Adv. A.Suwatheeswaran
Venkateshwaran
Sumathi
Lingusamy
Marimuthu
Respondent(s)
G.Ramesh
Lakshmi Narayani
Minor Vishnupriya
Minor Priyadharshini
Rajagopal
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Additional District Judge
Amendment
Amendment
Counter
Counter
Counter
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 06-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 02-01-2026 | Counter |
| 25-11-2025 | Counter |
| 25-10-2025 | Counter |
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur allowed the petition (IA.No.2/2023 in IP.No.2/2021) filed by petitioners Lakshmi Narayani and Rajagopalan, setting aside the ex-parte order dated 14.06.2023 that was issued against respondents 2 and 5. The court found that the petitioners were not properly served with court notices due to deliberate misrepresentation of their correct residential address by the respondents in the original petition, and thus they could not appear on the scheduled hearing date. The court determined that the petitioners had valid grounds for relief and permitted the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur allowed the petition (IA.No.2/2023 in IP.No.2/2021) filed by petitioners Lakshmi Narayani and Rajagopalan, setting aside the ex-parte order dated 14.06.2023 that was issued against respondents 2 and 5. The court found that the petitioners were not properly served with court notices due to deliberate misrepresentation of their correct residential address by the respondents in the original petition, and thus they could not appear on the scheduled hearing date. The court determined that the petitioners had valid grounds for relief and permitted the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts