Megalo Worldwide Logistics Pvt Ltd Formally known as AHL Freight India Pvt Ltd M/S.M.GANESAN, S.MANIMARAN,R.P.RAKESH vs T Abdul Wahid and Co Rep by its Partners 1 Mr T Faizan Ahmed and 2 Mr H Mahmood Akhter — A/1956/2026
Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section section21c. Disposed: Contested--ORDERED on 02nd June 2026.
CNR: HCMA010996912026
e-Filing Number
13-04-2026
Filing Number
A/73933/2026
Filing Date
26-03-2026
Registration No
A/1956/2026
Registration Date
22-04-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU
Coram
Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
ORIGINALSECTION
Decision Date
02nd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ORDERED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Megalo Worldwide Logistics Pvt Ltd Formally known as AHL Freight India Pvt Ltd M/S.M.GANESAN, S.MANIMARAN,R.P.RAKESH
Respondent(s)
T Abdul Wahid and Co Rep by its Partners 1 Mr T Faizan Ahmed and 2 Mr H Mahmood Akhter
T.FAIZAN AHMED
H.MAHMOOD AKHTER
M/S.TAW EXPORTS PVT.LTD
HAKIM MAHMOOD AKHTAR
FATIMAH ZAHRA THADEY
MR.FAIZAN AHMED
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.KUMARESH BABU
APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS |
Orders
Case Summary: A No. 1956/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court granted Megalo Worldwide Logistics' application and ordered the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,53,90,988 until disposal of the suit. The respondents had defaulted on a settled compromise agreement from an earlier suit by issuing bounced cheques marked "Insufficient Funds," and subsequently could not be served legal notices, prompting the current recovery suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: A No. 1956/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court granted Megalo Worldwide Logistics' application and ordered the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,53,90,988 until disposal of the suit. The respondents had defaulted on a settled compromise agreement from an earlier suit by issuing bounced cheques marked "Insufficient Funds," and subsequently could not be served legal notices, prompting the current recovery suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts