SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(AP) 1096

T.CH.SURYA RAO
Rajesh Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
G. Parimala – Respondent


( 1 ) INASMUCH as both these revision petitions emanate from a common order dated 20-12-2004 passed by the learned viil Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No. 250 of 2004 in O. S. No. 35 of 2002, they can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are thus: the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,83,000/- from the defendants 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that on the request of the first defendant the plaintiffs handed over the original sale deed dated 30-08-1993 and the fixed deposit receipts worth Rs. 3,83,000/- to her and her husband C. S. Sudhir Kumar. Plaintiffs used to receive interest amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the second defendant-bank on the above fixed deposits till May, 2001. However, without any reason what so ever the second defendant-bank stopped suddenly from the month of June 2001 the payment of interest. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that these fixed deposit receipts were given to the bank on hypothecation by the first defendant, who availed credit facilities and bank guarantee. When the bank guarantee was revoked by Andhra Bank, the second defendant-bank clo
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top