Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Vishalakshi Bhat W/o Sreekanth Hegde – Appellant
Versus
Sunder Rajan M.k.,s/o M.n. Krishnaswamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. investment in scheme (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim (Para 2) |
| 3. criminal complaint (Para 4) |
| 4. defendant's contention (Para 5) |
| 5. plaintiff's response (Para 6) |
| 6. issue of limitation (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. settled principle (Para 9) |
| 8. legal principles (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner–defendant, in this civil revision petition, challenges the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-28) in I.A. No. II in O.S. No. 5557/2017, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected. The petitioner seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.
1.1. The petitioner–defendant seeks the rejection of the plaint in a suit instituted for the recovery of monies allegedly invested by the plaintiff in an “Employee Benefit Scheme” upon solicitation by the defendant. The petitioner contends that the suit is based on a time-barred debt and a dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant in respect thereof. It is the specific contention of the petitioner–defendant that the issuance of a cheque in
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
