Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Vinay Anand – Appellant
Versus
APJ Family Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Mr. S. Bhanu Prasad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the mortgage agreement and defaults. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments concerning the limitation period and the nature of the dispute. (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding limitation period in mortgage recovery. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. determination of commercial disputes under cca. (Para 11) |
| 5. provisions for cross-examination despite forfeiting the right to file defense. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. dismissal of civil revision petition. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 26.06.2024 made in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in C.O.S. No. 125 of 2023 on the file of Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai.
2. The respondent/plaintiff presented C.O.S. No. 125 of 2023 seeking the relief of recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage. The civil revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit.
3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 04.07.2012, the civil revision petitioner/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.35 lakhs by mortgaging the suit schedule mentioned property. Furthermore, on 10.07.2012, the civil revision petitioner had borrowed a further sum of Rs.15 lakhs and had executed another mortgage deed. Both mortg
The court ruled that the recovery suit based on mortgage deeds is valid and falls under the Commercial Courts Act, as both parties engaged in a commercial transaction, with the suit being timely file....
A defendant may be granted leave to defend if a plausible defense is presented, but must deposit a portion of the claim amount as a condition for proceeding.
Amendments to pleadings must be liberally allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or introduce a time-barred claim.
The bar against Civil Revision Applications from interlocutory orders under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act is enforceable, and the requirement for pre-institution mediation was not applicable....
Trial court to decide plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC despite property omission, rejecting delay tactics.
A party must be afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, especially when previous representation has become untenable due to counsel's death.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
