Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Prasuna Ginning Mills – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Kalyana Chakravarthi Textiles Pvt., Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction and service of order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. underlying facts of fraud in transaction (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. legal protections for bona fide purchasers (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling and court decision (Para 14 , 15) |
COMMON ORDER
The decree holder is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions.
2.I have heard Mr.V.Haribabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Murugavel, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in CRP.No.4900 of 2023.
3.The respondents 1 and 2, despite multiple attempts to serve them, have remained elusive and evasive and hence, this Court has directed the revision petitioner to effect paper publication. In compliance with the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also effected paper publication in DT Next, Chennai Edition, English Daily and Malai Malar, Chennai Edition, Tamil newspaper dated 04.02.2026 and 05.02.2026. The respondents 1 and 2 are called and set ex-parte.
4.The facts, that are necessary for disposal of these revision petitions are as follows:
The Managing Director of the first respondent had approa
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
