REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A.M. AMBROSE Appellant

V/S

S. JEYARAJ Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BRITISH OIL MILLS CO. V. INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
C.ASSIAMMA V. STATE BANK OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGU VISWEWARASWAMI AND VEERARAGHAVA PERUMAL TEMPLES TIRUPPUR,COIMBATORE DISTRICT V. R.V.E.VENKATACHALA GOUNDER AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
R.JANAKIRAMAN V. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,C.B.I.,SPE.,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CHUNILAL SOMESHVAR BHATT V. VITHALDASS KARSANDAS [REFERRED TO]
M.SUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER V. M.L.R.M.LUTCHMAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
VISVONATA RAGHUNATH AUDI V. MARIANO COLACO [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT SINGH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K J NATHAN VS. S V MARUTHI RAO [REFERRED TO]
SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND VS. VELAMARTI SATYAM ALIAS SATTEYYA [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. JANMEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. ESTATE OFFICER AND MANAGER A P I I C LTD [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PROSAD CHARNARIA VS. MARIO GALSTAUN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKAR STORE [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA DAS VS. HIRALAL MODI [REFERRED TO]
KHETRAMOHAN RAY VS. UDAYANARAYAN PANDA [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. M SIVARUDRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
K KANAKARATHNAM VS. A PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
C RAJAGOPAL VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANEORE KARUR BRANCH KARUR [REFERRED TO]
HUBERT PEYOLI VS. SANTHAVILASATHU KESAVAN SIVADASAN [REFERRED TO]
V V TEXTILES VS. MAHAVIR FABRICS [REFERRED TO]
KARAN RAJ VS. CHUNNILAL [REFERRED TO]
C KRISHNAVENI AMMAL VS. PSSUBRAHMANYAM CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
OBLA) SUNDARACHARIAR VS. NARAYANA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
WALI MOHAMMAD VS. MOHAMMAD BAKSH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2003 in O.S.No.3230 of 2001 passed by the Learned II Additional City Civil Court Judge, Chennai. PLAINT FACTS:

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant was the neighbour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. He introduced his brother-in-law, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, who was doing the Real estate business and he needed funds for his business. On several occasions, the Appellant/Plaintiff advanced a loan to the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant which was repaid by him together with interest @24% per annum. In June 1999, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant approached the Appellant/Plaintiff and wanted a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs for purchasing a property and promised to return the said amount, within a period of eight months, at the latest by February 2000.

(3.) FOR the due repayment of the loans, as referred to supra, the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant mortgaged the property on 22.06.19996 bearing Paimash No.242, S.No.64, Block No.1, T.S.No.39, consisting of a House and Ground at Puliyur Village, Kamala Nehru, as collateral security for the repayment of the loan and created a mortgage for the loans advanced and for future loans to be granted by the Appellant/Plaintiff to the Respondents/Defendants. The security was kept alive, since there was some loams or the other advanced to both the defendants with remained unpaid. Further the security was continuing as an account of the Respondents/Defendant with the Appellant/Plaintiff was a running account.

Click here to view full judgment.

A M AMBROSE Vs. S JEYARAJ

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address