naDunADu
TIL cuddalore i.e naDunADu was called as Pataliputram , was a region under banas in pallava era. naDunADu was an important centre for Jainism in TN . Banas are known as Magadharayas , and have named their region of rule as Magadhanadu even till 13th century.
Arugalur - salem ,was the last capital of banas in 13th century, banas continued to patronise Jainism
They were probably remnant mauryan-s who remained behind in the drAviDa country from the days of the mauryan conquest of parts of the land. The tunnel built by the mauryans through the mountains during the invasion of the drAviDa country is spoken of with amazement in one of the earliest tamiL texts, the puranAnUru.
There were remnant mauryans in other parts of the country too. That is my take, especially given that many of those lineages feature the repeated use of the name chandragupta and/or a link to magadha. The feudatories taking the name seems to have emerged only in later phase ~9-1000s
Javali
One of their outposts was the konkans where chandrarav had a stronghold in Javli and still retained the name of the founder of his clan in pATalIputra. Thus, one could say that the mauryan dynasty was finally ended by shivAjI when his strike killed chandrarAv.
Vallabhi
Another branch was stationed further south in Vallabhi in Gujarat and was probably a sister branch of the Konkan group. The former moved to found a kingdom centered on Waghadi in Khandesh, Mh.
mathura
There was a further branch in the holy city of Mathura. The exact relationship of these to the lineage of yashovarman is unclear and might have been related.
kAnyakubja
In the north central domain, the mauryans briefly reemerged under yashovarman as the shortly neo-mauryan empire with its capital at kAnyakubja, ruling from the panjab to va~Nga. It was destroyed by the Kashmirian emperor lalitAditya.
Kota - dhavala
Yes, there was some other mauryan remnants that are worth mentioning. There was one ruling around the triangle centered on Kota, Jhalrapattana and Chittorgarh, which was the maurya kingdom conquered by bappA rAvala.
Their ruler chitrA~Ngada maurya founded or refurbished the chitrakUTa fort (Chittorgarh) which later become a central stronghold of the guhila-sisodiya-s. One subset of their survivors were evidently incorporated as “vassals” of the sisodiya-s.
The power inversion between the guhila-s (-> sisodiya) and maurya-s.
The existence of the Moris or Mauryas is evident from some epigraphic records. Firstly, in a record discovered at Jhalrapatan dated A.D. 690, the Mauryas are referred to 28. Secondly, a record found in Kotah state (dated A.D. 738-739) refers to the local prince as a friend of king Dhavala of Maurya lineage29. Thirdly, the Dabok Inscription, 30 also known as Dhod Inscription refers to Paramabhattaraka Mahārājādhirāja Paramesvara Dhavalappadeva as the suzerain of Guhilaputra Dhaṇika who 31 ruled in Udaipur. D.R. Bhandarkar reads the date of the inscription as 407 G. E., that is, A.D. 725-726. R.R. Halder reads it as 207 H. E., that is, 33 A.D. 813. D. C. Sircar refutes these readings and suggests that the year would be V.S. 701 corresponding to A.D. 644. But neither the date read by R.R. Halder, nor the date read by D. C. Sircar seems to be correct, as Harsharāja, fourth in descent from 34 Dhanika according to the Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya (of the 10th century A.D.), was a contem- porary of Bhoja I, that is, Pratihāra Mihira Bhoja (836-885 A.D.). Of course, Sircar did not identify Dhanika of Dhod or Dabok Inscription with Dhanika of Chatsu Inscription. However, on palaeographical grounds, the characters are not earlier than the 8th or 9th century A.D. In that case, A.D. 725-26, as suggested by Bhandarkar, should be acceptable as the date of the inscription. Further, Dhavalappa …