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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 4335

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
K. Thangavel Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Nachimuthu Gounder – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Murugamanickam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V.P. Sengottuvel, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Alleging that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-on 01.09.2000 from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a; that on 09.09.2000 again the respondent/defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.20,000/-from the appellant/plaintiff and executed Ex.A2-Promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and that in spite of repeated demands made by the appellant/plaintiff, no amount was paid by the respondent/defendant either towards principal or towards interest, the appellant/plaintiff chose to file O.S.No.646 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Erode. It was also the averment made by the plaintiff that both the suit promissory notices were written by the respondent/defendant in his own handwriting. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the trial Court, namely the Court of the District Munsif, Erode on change of the pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.1268 of 2004.

2. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement denying the alleged borrow















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