Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
P. B. BALAJI
R. Karuppannan – Appellant
Versus
Natarajan (Deceased) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(P.B. Balaji, J.)
(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2014 made in R.E.A.No.137 of 2004 in R.E.P.No.126 of 2002 in O.S.No.193 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.)
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2014 made in R.E.A.No.137 of 2004 in R.E.P.No.126 of 2002 in O.S.No.193 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.
2. The Second Appeal proceedings arise from a suit for recovery of money filed by one N.Gunasekaran, as plaintiff, in O.S.No.193 of 2002 against one K.R.Jagadeesan, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,025/- based on a promissory note executed by the defendant in
The court established that non-compliance with procedural requirements for attachment before judgment renders the attachment ineffective, impacting the validity of subsequent sales, including court a....
A claim under Order 38 Rule 10 of C.P.C is maintainable after the suit is decreed, and the attachment before judgment continues after the decree, adjudicable under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C.
Attachment must comply with jurisdictional rules; absence qualifies as an irregularity, not an automatic nullity unless substantial injury is proven.
A decree established in a suit under Order XXI does not automatically nullify an execution sale where necessary parties are not included, reaffirming the principles of execution law.
The main legal point established is that property conveyed to a Defendant's wife can be attached to satisfy a decree if the conveyance was done to evade execution, and legal heirs are liable to satis....
Execution of arbitral award – A judgment debtor cannot defeat a decree by alienating property after decree is passed but before decree is realised.
A party cannot assert ownership or set aside property attachments if the property was previously alienated during a court-ordered attachment, regardless of purported ignorance of such order.
Vijayalakshmi Leather Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai-3 Vs. K.Narayanan & Others
-
Read summaryNataraja Naidu (Died) and Others Vs. Soundarajan and Others
-
Read summarySri Humbi Hema Gooda and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd., Coimbatore and Others
-
Read summaryUsha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram & Others
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.