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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 218

RAJU
M. Sadaksharavel – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. C.A. Sundaram Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. R. Sreekrishnan Advocate for the Respondent.

Judgment :

Having regard to the nature and scope of consideration involved both in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and the main revision, a date has been fixed for the hearing of both the petitions by an order dated 19-12-1994. Hence, both are taken up together for hearing. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 21. 1994 in I.A.No.9 of 1994 in O.S.8 of 1985, wherein the application filed by the second defendant (defendant) in the suit came to be rejected. In the said application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 125 of Companies Act, the second defendant sought for treating the issue regarding limitation and the sale of shares, as preliminary issue and dispose them of as such before finally adjudicating the suit.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that the suit by the plaintiff was for the recovery of Rs.2,96,87,614/-, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit claim, since the plaintiff has committed breach of trust without sufficient considerations on account of selling the shares of the company held in Revahi CP Equi











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