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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1241

K.MOHAN RAM
K. V. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
B. A. Damodaran – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:P. Mathivanan, Advocate. For the Respondent:K. Ramaraj, Advocate.

Judgment :-

(Appeal against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.146 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge Salem, dated 31.10.1991.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Salem, is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 09.02.1985 agreeing to pay the same with interest at Rs.1.50 per hundred per month to the plaintiff or his order on demand. But in spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note and hence a notice dated 31.07.1986 was issued calling upon the defendant to pay the amount and for that a reply containing false allegations was sent by the defendant. Since the defendant is owning properties worth more than two lakhs and his annual income will be nearly Rs.10,000/-, he is not entitled to any benefits under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts. Hence the suit.

4. A detailed written statement















































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