SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Abul Kalam Azad – Appellant
Versus
A.L. Jawaharlal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : V. Raghavachari, V. Srimathi
For the Respondent: G. Ilamurugu

Table of Content
1. details of the case and parties involved (Para 2)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding the lok adalat award (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's observations on arguments and prior rulings (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER :

2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachani, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, that after 2001, the plaintiff had abandoned the construction and it was only the revision petitioner who spent substantial monies, out of his own income, to complete the construction. He would further state that the Bank loan has been discharged from and out of the independent income of the revision petitioner and also by sale of valuable jewels belonging to his wife and sale of one of his personal properties, in order to avoid the common properties being brought for sale in public auction. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that it is only under such circumstances that the parties agreed for settling the matter before the Lok Adalat. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top