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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 242

T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Narendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Sumathi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner - N. Nagu Sah, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B.S. Jothi Raman, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order and decreetal order dated 19.09.2005, passed by the IX Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai partly allowing E.A.No.3965 of 2005 in E.P.No.643 of 2005 as far as it disallowed the decree-holders claim for interest at 36% per annum from November 1999 to 01.01.2001 and for the pendente lite period from 02.01.2001 to 21.09.2003, the date of decree.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2001 for recovery of the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- paid for purchase of the property bearing door No.49, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 79 together with interest at the rate of 36% per annum. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit claim and filed a written statement. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003. The respondent/decree-holder filed E.P.No.643 of 2005, to recover the decree amount by arrest and detention of the petitioner/judgment-debtor. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in E.A.No.3945 of 2005, stating that the trial Court passed the decree without









































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