REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

D. Anandaraj Appellant

V/S

K. R. Vengoba Rao Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED,TUTICORIN VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE TAMIL NADU SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT,MADURAI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MR. RUKMINI VS. RAJENDRAN GNANAVOLIVU,REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT VEINA GNANAVALIVU [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH THAKUR SINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
M K PRASAD VS. P ARUMUGAM [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
POSTMASTER GENERAL VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
C SUBRAMANIAM VS. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
KANDASWAMY VS. KRISHNAMANDIRAM TRUST KARUR [REFERRED TO]
G JAYARAMAN VS. DEVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. CHOKKALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
K M BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. C LOGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed by the Sub-Court, Poonamallee in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in LAOP No. 95 of 2011 dtd. 14/10/2022.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the 2nd claimant in LAOP No.95 of 2011.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner was set ex-parte on 9/12/2013 in LAOP proceedings. Though, ample opportunities were provided to the revision petitioner, he had failed to contest the LAOP and even after passing of an ex-parte order, the revision petitioner had not chosen to file any petition to set aside the ex-parte order during the years 2013 and 2014.

Click here to view full judgment.

D. ANANDARAJ Vs. K. R. VENGOBA RAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address