IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
A. Anand Prasad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought in family arrangement validity. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 2) |
| 2. details of prior debts and legal proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. substantial questions of law clarified. (Para 4) |
| 4. appellant's arguments against validity of family arrangement. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 14.02.2003, passed in A.S.No.80 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.7963 of 2021 dated 06.09.2022 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bank.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:
(a) for a declaration that the Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 05.04.2022 is valid and binding;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant, their men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except by due process of law and for costs.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
3.1. One L.V.Pra
Vadlamannati Venkatanarayana Rao vs. Gottumukkula Venkata Somaraju
S.M. Jakati & Another vs. S.M. Borkar & Ors
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Machado Brothers & others
Punjab National Bank vs. J. Samsath Beevi & others
Venkataraja & others vs. Vidyane Doureradjperumal and others
Jageshwari Devi vs. Shatrughan Ram
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank Ltd.
Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association
An unregistered family arrangement cannot bind third-party creditors; delays in litigation undervalue statutorily established recovery rights.
Application against measures to recover secured debts – Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted. However, Civil Courts have to be extremely cautious while granting any interim order ....
The jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in matters related to the classification of loan accounts as NPA under the SARFAESI Act.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for suits challenging recovery proceedings, and actions are ex f....
(1) Recovery of loan amount – There is no provision in RDB Act by which remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by bank is ousted, but it is matter of choice of that defendant.(2) There is n....
The civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of sale and mortgage deeds under the SARFAESI Act, and a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
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.