M.Manonmani Tatva Legal Chennai vs Canara Bank — CRP/3210/2026

Case under U/a 227 Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010975532026

Filing Number

CRP/72327/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRP/3210/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Civil Revision Petition ( 166 )

Sub-Category

Article 227 of the Constitution of India ( 44 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/a 227 Constitution of India Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.Manonmani Tatva Legal Chennai

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Canara Bank

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

    Case Summary - CRP No.3210/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by M. Manonmani (sole proprietrix of Sri Kumaran Stores) against Canara Bank as infructuous on 15.06.2026. The petitioner had sought to expedite the disposal of an interim application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, but counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition had become infructuous, leading the court to dismiss it without costs and close the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Crp)

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP/3210/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - CRP No.3210/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by M. Manonmani (sole proprietrix of Sri Kumaran Stores) against Canara Bank as infructuous on 15.06.2026. The petitioner had sought to expedite the disposal of an interim application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, but counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition had become infructuous, leading the court to dismiss it without costs and close the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case