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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1153

R. HEMALATHA
P. Sundareswar – Appellant
Versus
Pinky Jain – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:P. Valliappan, Advocate. For the Respondent:Sandeep S. Sha for M/s. Sha & Sha, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 16.11.2009 passed in A.S. No.251 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai, reversing the decree and judgment dated 25.10.2006 passed in O.S. No.3107 of 2003, on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.3107 of 2003 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,933/- due on a pro-note together with interest @ 30% per annum on the principal of Rs.40,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 10.06.2000 from him and executed a pro-note (Ex.A2) promising to repay the principal together with interest at the rate of 30% per annum on his demand or to his order. His further contention is that though it was

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