Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, Mr. N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ
S.Vijaya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
E.Jeevanandam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. enforceability of mou and associated legal implications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the agreement to enter into an agreement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. observations on the rights and obligations derived from the mou. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. understanding the scope and application of order 14 rule 2 cpc. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. final decision and direction regarding the ongoing trial. (Para 26 , 27) |
For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Thiagarajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The appellant is the defendant in suit. The suit had come to be filed by the respondent seeking the following prayers:-
“(a) declaring that the notice dated 25.6.2007 and the consequential rejoinder dated 29.8.2007 issued by the defendant seeking to cancel the Agreement/MOU dated 5.7.2002 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, regarding the suit schedule property is concerned, as illegal and not enforceable (b) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person claiming under the defendant from executing any deed or action disturbing the plaintiff's right under the MOU/agreeme
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
