REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

R. RAVINDRAN Appellant

V/S

M. RAJAMANICKAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRATIVADI BHAYANKARAM PICHAMMA V. KAMISETTI SREERAMULU AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MUZAMMAL HUSSAIN V. CHAGANLAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
GULVIR SINGH VS. TARA CHAND [REFERRED TO]
M AGAIAH VS. MOHAMMAD ABDUL KEREEM [REFERRED TO]
MAROTHU SURYARAO VS. PALURI PEDIYYA [REFERRED TO]
THUMMALA SURYAMMA VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
SOHANLAL RUIA VS. KEDARNATH PURUSHOTTAMDAS AND CO PRIVATE LTD [REFERRED TO]
NATESA THEVAR VS. VAIRAVAN SERVAIGARAN [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTHAN STEEL VS. PRAKASH CHAND AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMA RAO VS. SHANTIBAI [REFERRED TO]
KUNJANNAM VS. A ISSAC [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA HAJI VS. MAMMUNHI BARIKAT [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS- VS. P L KARUPPAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
C CHENNAIYA NAIDU VS. PANCHAYAT BOARD VENUKADATHAMPATTI [REFERRED TO]
PUGAL VS. KAMALA [REFERRED TO]
SANKARA PILLAI VS. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
SOOPI HAJI VS. R M RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMA PANICKER DIVAKARA PANICKER OF PAVANA VEEDU VS. BAKARI HYDROSE CHENNAMPILLY [REFERRED TO]
GOPI KISAN VS. RAMU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the Order of the learned District Judge, Nagappattinam in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 dated 22.09.2006.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows:

(3.) THUS, the Full Bench of this Court had considered that the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 could be brought into play only where the case has been closed on both sides and the adjournment was only for argument as otherwise, it would be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory decision on the materials before it. THUS, it is apparent that 'consideration of materials before it' is necessary to arrive at a finding under Order 17 Rule 3.

Click here to view full judgment.

R RAVINDRAN Vs. M RAJAMANICKAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address