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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 890

S.TAMILVANAN
Kathirvelu – Appellant
Versus
Anbazhagan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Srivatsamani, Advocate.

Judgment :-

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 made in O.S.No.38 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. According to the appellant, the respondent having borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 01.03.1991, executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 18% p.a. Subsequently, the amount was not repaid and thereby the loan was not discharged. Hence, the appellant filed the suit seeking a decree against the respondent directing him to pay a sum of Rs.47,100/-with interest on the principal amount Rs.35,000/-at 18% p.a. and also for the costs.

3. The respondent herein as defendant has submitted in his written statement that he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant and executed the suit promissory note, as alleged by the appellant. According to him, he was only a subscriber of Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Bhuvanagiri run by the appellant herein. Being a subscriber, he had taken money in the auction held and the dues were subsequently settled by him and that his wife, A.Vijaya had also joined as a subscriber in a chi
























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