Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
M.Damodaran – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Ganesh Gold Thread Manufacturing Co. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and prayer. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against admissibility of lease agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. counterarguments for admissibility of lease. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's initial thoughts on the case. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal principles on document admissibility. (Para 12 , 14) |
ORDER
The defendant, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.5 of 2025, directing the lease agreement dated 01.01.2005 to be impounded, is the revision petitioner.
2.I have heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Vedavel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Arvind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.M.Rajalakshmi @ Sathya for the respondent.
3.Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the lease agreement in original was allegedly filed along with the plaint originally before this Court. Thereafter, the suit has been transferred to the file of the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original lease agreement was not marked, however, during cross-examination of DW1, the witness was confronted with a photostat copy of the said lease agre
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
