Patco Precision Components Private Limited Represented by its managing director Ravindra Patil M/S.BRIDGEHEAD LAW PARTNERS, PRANAV V SHANKAR vs Tapams Advanced Management and Industries Private Limited Represented by its managing director — A/1340/2026

Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--DELAY CONDONED on 01st June 2026.

CNR: HCMA010630852026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

09-03-2026

Filing Number

A/46450/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

A/1340/2026

Registration Date

13-03-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Decision Date

01st June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DELAY CONDONED

Acts & Sections

Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

Patco Precision Components Private Limited Represented by its managing director Ravindra Patil M/S.BRIDGEHEAD LAW PARTNERS, PRANAV V SHANKAR

Respondent(s)

Tapams Advanced Management and Industries Private Limited Represented by its managing director

Hearing History

Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU

01-06-2026

APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS

Orders

01-06-2026
Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU

The court granted Patco Precision Components' application to condone a 39-day delay in filing the written statement in the commercial suit against Tapams Advanced Management and Industries. The judge, satisfied with the affidavit's averments and noting the respondent's counsel had no objection, approved the condonation and directed the registry to place the written statement on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted Patco Precision Components' application to condone a 39-day delay in filing the written statement in the commercial suit against Tapams Advanced Management and Industries. The judge, satisfied with the affidavit's averments and noting the respondent's counsel had no objection, approved the condonation and directed the registry to place the written statement on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case