MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR
Jaindra Manilal Tanna – Appellant
Versus
Ab. Aziz Lokhandwala – Respondent
2. The facts in brief as narrated in the petitions/ complaints are that the respondent had obtained financial assistance from the Central Bank of India and some proceedings about same were pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. It is further pleaded in the complaint that because of the alleged misconduct of counsel engaged to defend the respondent in the said proceedings an ex-parte judgment was passed against the complainant. It is further pleaded that the engaged counsel did not even file appeal against the ex-parte judgment. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioner and respondent arrived at memorandum of understanding for one time settlement of the case of the respondent with the Central Bank of India. It was agreed upon that in lieu of one time settlement, the petitioner will be entitled to receive substantial amount details whereof have been given in the memorandum of understanding. It is further averred that respondent, accordingly, issued cheques of different amounts in the name of Chandini Agen
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.