REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Deepa George Appellant

V/S

S. Valsa Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. TEK CHAND BHATIA [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. N R VAIRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA K V MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS LTD VS. BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ARULMOZHI INIARASU [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. HEERALAL [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. HEERALAL [REFERRED TO]
P.ABDU VS. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]
R.D. JAIN VS. CAPITAL FIRST LTD [REFERRED TO]
BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS VS. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. PRABHA JAIN [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LTD VS. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 2025 on the files of the third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. She has approached this Court in this appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.3 of 2025. The application was filed for interim injunction against the 3rd respondent from entering into or trespassing into the plaint schedule property and taking possession of the same in any manner whatsoever. Suit is for declaration, partition and injunction.

(2.) Brief facts essential for disposal of this appeal are as under:-

(3.) As per the version of the appellant, she came to know about the mortgage created by the 1 st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent only when she noticed a registered notice issued by the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner to the 2nd respondent during a visit to the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, she filed the suit and also the application for interim injunction.

Click here to view full judgment.

DEEPA GEORGE Vs. S. VALSA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address