IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR
R.Rasappan – Appellant
Versus
D.Rajalakshmi (died) – Respondent
COMMON ORDER :
C.R.P.No.1013 of 2025 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2005, in O.S.No.534 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sub- Court, Erode, on the ground that the judgment in the present suit is not in conformity with Order XX Rules 4 and 5 CPC and the same cannot be construed as a valid judgment. C.R.P.No.2774 of 2024 has been filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order of the Sub-Court, Avinashi, dated 07.03.2023, in E.A.No.43 of 2019 in E.P.No.2 of 2017, dismissing the application under Section 47 CPC filed on the ground that the decree has been obtained by playing fraud. Both these revisions are filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3.Brief background of the case is as follows :
The suit in O.S.No.534 of 2000 has been originally filed by D.Rajalakshmi, for specific performance to enforce the sale agreement dated 19.01.2000 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property. The said suit was originally decreed ex parte on 31.10.2003. Thereafter, th
Balrej Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another
B.Booma Devi and others v. District Collector and others
S.Baskar v. S.Ranjithkumar and others
N.Maheswari v. Mariappan and others
K.P.Natarajan and another v. Muthalammal and others
A.V.Papayya Sastry & another v. Government of A.P. and others
SnehLata Goel v. Pushpalatha and others
Shanthilal Kothari v. Sasthrasala Venkatram (D) Sasthrasala Sharathbabu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.