Mrs Sudha Kongara (Director/Writer - Parasakthi Film) M/S.Vijayan Subramanian, ALBERT PAUL R,DHANUSH M,A.MURALI,N.C.NARINDRAADITHYAN,M.V.BHASKAR vs K V Rajendran alias Varun Rajendran — A/1928/2026

Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 63. Disposed: Contested--DELAY CONDONED on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010983522026

e-Filing Number

20-04-2026

Filing Number

A/72898/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

A/1928/2026

Registration Date

22-Apr-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 63

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mrs Sudha Kongara (Director/Writer - Parasakthi Film) M/S.Vijayan Subramanian, ALBERT PAUL R,DHANUSH M,A.MURALI,N.C.NARINDRAADITHYAN,M.V.BHASKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K V Rajendran alias Varun Rajendran

  2. 2.MrArjun Nadesan

  3. 3.Mr.Mathimaran Pugazhendhi

  4. 4.Dawn Pictures Private Ltd

  5. 5.THE SOUTH INDIAN FILM WRITERS ASSOCIATION (SWAN)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    The court condoned a 45-day delay in filing the written statement of the first defendant in a commercial suit. The court granted the application after finding the affidavit's averments satisfactory and noting that the first respondent's counsel had no objection to condonation. 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. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. A/1928/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court condoned a 45-day delay in filing the written statement of the first defendant in a commercial suit. The court granted the application after finding the affidavit's averments satisfactory and noting that the first respondent's counsel had no objection to condonation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case