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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Sarala – Appellant
Versus
M. Uma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Premkumar
For the Respondents: K. Govi Ganesan, J. Elanjchezien

Table of Content
1. factual background and counterarguments presented. (Para 1 , 6 , 14)
2. nature of financial transactions and agreements. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding the validity of the debt confirmation deed. (Para 8 , 9)
4. determination of leave to defend the suit. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants in a summary suit, having failed in their attempt to seek unconditional leave to defend the suit, are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment passed in the suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The plaint in brief:

(b) The 3rd defendant borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and repaid the same. In December 2022, the 1st defendant introduced the defendants 4 and 5 and requested the plaintiff to give a loan to the defendants 4 and 5. Trusting the 1st defendant, the plaintiff lent Rs.6 lakhs to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff believed the representations of the 3rd defendant that she was living in a luxurious house and her husband was doing silver article business. The plaintiff without even any security lent the money. From August 2022, the defendant failed to pay even interest on Rs.12 lakhs. Thereafter, after much pursuation,

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