Arc International Fertility and Research Centre Private Limited M/S.AAV PARTNERS vs Typewriter and Office Appliances India Co Pvt Ltd — A/1489/2026

Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section OrderVRule1. Disposed: Contested--DELAY CONDONED on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010709452026

e-Filing Number

14-08-2025

Filing Number

A/52237/2026

Filing Date

14-Aug-2025

Registration No

A/1489/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Decision Date

01-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DELAY CONDONED

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section OrderVRule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arc International Fertility and Research Centre Private Limited M/S.AAV PARTNERS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Typewriter and Office Appliances India Co Pvt Ltd

  2. 2.Vishnu Phadke

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    The court granted the respondents' application to condone an 84-day delay in filing their written statement in the commercial suit. The judge found the reasons provided in the supporting affidavit satisfactory and noted that the petitioner's counsel had no objection, thereby allowing the application as requested and directing the registry to file the written statement on record if procedurally proper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Application In CIVIL Suits

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 14-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. A/1489/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the respondents' application to condone an 84-day delay in filing their written statement in the commercial suit. The judge found the reasons provided in the supporting affidavit satisfactory and noted that the petitioner's counsel had no objection, thereby allowing the application as requested and directing the registry to file the written statement on record if procedurally proper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case