B.RAGHUMARAN Vs. PUSHPABAI
LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-236
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 08,2016

B. Raghumaran (Rep. by his Power Agent, R. Bharathidasan) Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. Pushpabai Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TENAX STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. V. THE BRIMNES(OWNERS) [REFERRED TO]
RAMU UDAYAR V. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BENGAL V. RAMANATHAN SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
MADURA COATS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,MANAGER),TUTICORIN V. PRESIDING OFFICER,LABOUR COURT,TIRUNELVELI [REFERRED TO]
MR. ZEB-UL-NISA V. DIN MOHAMED [REFERRED TO]
RUKHMABAI VS. LALA LAXMINARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. RAJINDER PRASHAD [REFERRED TO]
C C ALAVI HAJI VS. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
INDO AUTOMOBILES VS. JAI DURGA ENTERPRISES [REFERRED TO]
SAMITTRI DEVI VS. SAMPURAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAM VS. PHULWATI [REFERRED TO]
VEMBU AMMAL VS. SWAMINATHAN [REFERRED TO]
T SANTHANA KESARI VS. KATHIJA BAI [REFERRED TO]
S K KUMARASWAMI VS. S R SOMASUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]
K A ALAGIAH VS. A A CHINNAZHAGU [REFERRED TO]
UPBHOKTA SAHAKARI BHANDAR LTD VS. VINOD LAL FATEH CHAND SINGHAI [REFERRED TO]
P BAKTHAVATCHALAM VS. B MOHANASUNDARI [REFERRED TO]
DIVYA VS. SENGAMALAI [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU DUTT SHASTRI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD VS. HARI NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
SHANTA MEENA VS. KULSHREE [REFERRED TO]
MT BOLO VS. MT KOKLAN [REFERRED TO]
SIVAGURUNATHAN VS. S SHANMUGARAJA [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI VS. LALTA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MRS. J. KASTHURI AND ORS. VS. SETH GHANSHAMDAS VONSIMAL DEVA BANK [REFERRED TO]
L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA VS. H.B. SHIVAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ELANGOVAN VS. SULOCHANA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-162] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

T.Mathivanan,J. - (1.)This memorandum of second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 and made in the appeal in A.S. No. 30 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
(2.)The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 174 of 2010, whereas the respondents are the defendants.
(3.)For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, whereas, the respondents be referred to as the defendants, where ever, the context so require, as it is the character of the parties to the suit.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.