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

1976 Supreme(Mad) 631

G.RAMANUJAM
R. M. T. S. S. Dhanasekaran – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India, Dindigul through its Agent at Dindigul Branch – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Seshadri, for Appellant.
K. Sarvabhauman, for Respondent.

Order.- These two appeals have been filed by the third defendant in O.S. No. 97 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Dindigul, against the order dismissing his applications viz., I.A. Nos. 660 and 668 of 1975, for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 31st July, 1973 and the ex parte final decree dated 11th January, 1974.

2. The respondent bank filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 5,76,517-85 said to be due on a mortgage from the defendants 1 to 5. The first defendant is a firm and defendants 2 to 4 are the partners and the minor 5th defendant has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The sixth defendant is the Official Assignee, Madras, in charge of the estate of defendants 2 to 4 who have been adjudicated as insolvents. In the suit, no personal service of summons was effected on the third defendant, but summons had been served by substituted service and by publication in “ Malai Murasu” newspaper. The 5th defendant, a minor represented by a Court-guardian, and the 6th defendant, the Official Assignee, alone appeared at the trial, and as defendants 1 to 4 remained absent, they were set ex parte and an ex parte preliminary decree came to be











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