Madras High Court
Tmt.Binu Christeena vs M.A.R.Juherniza on 23 June, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S. No.81 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S. No.81 of 2021
Tmt.Binu Christeena
W/o. Thiru Peter Arivarasan,
No.3/421, Pandian Salai,
Neelankarai, Chennai-115. ... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M.A.R.Juherniza,
New D.No.226, Old D.No.171,
Ramakrishna Mutt Salai,
Mandaveli, Chennai-28.
2. Mrs.A.J.Manaraseena
D/o. Late A.Jalal
New D.No.226, Old D.No.171
Ramakrishna Mutt Salai,
Mandaveli, Chennai - 600 028.
3. Mrs.A.Thameemnisa
D/o. Late Jalal, D.No.14/8,
Appavu Gramani 1st Street,
Mandaveli, Chennai 28.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.S. No.81 of 2021
4.Mrs.A.J.Shahar Banu
D/o Late A.Jalal,
D.No.51A, Salaiar Street,
Mandaveli, Chennai 28.
5. Mrs.A.J.Noornisa
D/o Late A.Jalal
New D.No.80/2, Old D.No.7/1,
Lalitha Nagar, 1st St.,
Mylapore, Chennai 04.
6. Mr.J.Khaja Moideen
S/o Late A.Jalal,
New D.No.226, Old D.No.171,
Ramakrisha Mutt Salai
Mandaveli, Chennai 28.
7. Mrs. A.J.Shabina Parveen
D/o Late A.Jalal
New D No.226, Old D.No.171,
Ramakrishna Mutt Salai
Mandaveli, Chennai 28.
8.Thiru.A.Pradeep
S/o A.Asokan
Door No.1, Vannianpathi Street,
R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules
Read With Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C., prays for the Judgment and
Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 8, as follows:
(a) directing defendants 1 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs.2,39,18,494/- with
subsequent interest at the very same rate of 18% per annum on the suit
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.S. No.81 of 2021
amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/- from the date of the plaint to till the date of
realisation;
b) For costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Palaniandavan
For D8 : Dr.S.S.Swaminathan
D1 to D7 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,39,18,494/- from
defendants 1 to 8 with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.1,31,00,000/- from
the date of plaint till the date of realisation.
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff states that she entered into sale agreement
dated 25.07.2016 with the 8th defendant acting as agent of defendants 1 to 7.
Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff states that an aggregate sum of
Rs.2,56,00,000/- was paid to the 8th defendant from and out of the total sale
consideration of Rs.6,67,86,458/-. Thereafter, it is also stated that the
plaintiff constructed houses/villas on the property and received an aggregate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
advance of Rs.2,60,00,000/- from two buyers. Since the 8th defendant did
not come forward to execute the sale deed and instead suggested that a joint
venture agreement be entered into, the plaintiff states that joint venture
agreement dated 25.10.2017 was executed. On the date of execution thereof,
it is stated that a further sum of Rs.44 lakhs was paid, thereby aggregating to
a sum of Rs.3 crores.
3. By further asserting that the 8th defendant refused to register
documents in favour of buyers of villas, which were allotted to the plaintiff's
share, it is stated that the plaintiff was constrained to lodge a police
complaint. In course of hearing of Crl.O.P.No.682 of 2019, the plaintiff
states that the 8th defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the plaintiff
and a sum of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to the plaintiff's buyers. According to the
plaintiff, a sum of Rs.2,16,00,000/- had been incurred as costs for
developing the property pursuant to the agreement of sale and joint venture
agreement. After giving credit to amounts received from the 8th defendant,
the plaintiff computed the principal suit claim of Rs.1,31,00,000/- and the
aggregate claim of Rs.2,39,18,494/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
4. In spite of service of suit summons, defendants 1 to 7 did not
contest the suit. The 8th defendant, however, entered appearance and filed a
written statement. In the written statement of the 8th defendant, the
execution of the sale agreement and joint venture agreement as an agent of
defendants 1-7 are admitted. It is also stated that the power of attorney
remains in force. As regards payments pursuant to the said agreements, the
8th defendant has set out details thereof in paragraph 18 of the written
statement. In effect, the receipt of the aggregate sum of Rs.2,56,00,000/- is
admitted therein and it is stated that three cheques, each dated 10.06.2017,
for sums of Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs were dishonoured.
According to the 8th defendant, the plaintiff only paid the sum of
Rs.2,56,00,000/- and not the sum of Rs.3 crores as stated in the plaint.
5. The agreed position between the plaintiff and the 8th defendant is
that the plaintiff put the 8th defendant in possession of the immovable
property forming the subject of the sale agreement and joint venture
agreement and that it was agreed between them that, consequently, further
obligations under the joint venture agreement would not survive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
6. Upon considering the pleadings and documents, issues were framed
on 24.04.2024. Although ten issues were framed, in view of the
developments recorded above, only the following five issues retain
relevance:
“1. Whether the defendants 1 to 8 are liable to pay a sum
of Rs.2,39,18,494/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18%
per annum for the principal amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/- from the
date of the plaint till the date of realisation ?
6. Whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rupees Three Crores
to the defendants in respect of the Sale Agreement dated
25.07.2016 and Joint Venture agreement dated 25.10.2017 ?
7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.2,16,00,000/-
towards construction, Approval, Marketing & Labour ?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim even
after payment of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to the prospective purchasers
of the Villa ?
10. To what other reliefs?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
7. The plaintiff adduced oral evidence by examining her husband,
Peter Arivarasan, as P.W.1. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1,
15 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P15. P.W.1 was cross-examined
by learned counsel for the 8th defendant. In course of cross-examination, five
documents were exhibited as Exs.D1 to D5. The 8th defendant did not lead
oral evidence. Significantly, the 8th defendant did not file an affidavit of
admission/denial in respect of documents filed and exhibited by the plaintiff.
Counsel and their contentions
8. Oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were advanced by
Mr.R.Palaniandavan and on behalf of the 8th defendant by
Dr.S.S.Swaminathan.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff referred to the Sale Agreement
dated 25.07.2016 (Ex.P2), Developing Power cum Memorandum of
Understanding dated 25.07.2016 (Ex.P3) and receipts dated 12.09.2016 &
07.04.2017. He pointed out that these documents contain acknowledgements
for the receipt of an aggregate sum of Rs.2 crores. By referring to the joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
venture agreement dated 25.10.2017 (Ex.P6), learned counsel submits that
said document contains an acknowledgement of the receipt of the aggregate
sum of Rs.3 crores by the 8th defendant from the plaintiff. By referring to
paragraph X of the plaint, learned counsel submits that it is pleaded therein
that the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.44 lakhs on 25.10.2017, i.e. the
date of execution of the joint venture agreement. Thus, learned counsel
submitted that the plaintiff had paid an aggregate sum of Rs.3 crores to the
8th defendant.
10. In addition, he submits that the plaintiff had incurred expenditure
of Rs.2,16,00,000/- in developing the property. Hence, he submits that the
total amount due from the 8th defendant is Rs.5,16,00,000/-. He also submits
that the amount paid by the 8th defendant to third party buyers of villas
constructed by the plaintiff were given credit to while arriving at the
principal suit claim of Rs.1,31,00,000/-. By referring to questions and
answers 30 & 31 during cross-examination of P.W.1 on 03.07.2024, learned
counsel submits that P.W.1 explained that three cheques for Rs.50 lakhs
were issued because the 8th defendant had asked for an excess amount for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
personal needs. He also pointed out that P.W.1 stated that cash payment was
made on 25.10.2017 in lieu of the three dishonoured cheques.
11. In response, learned counsel for the 8th defendant referred to
Exs.P2, P4 and P5 to point out that these documents provide particulars of
the mode of payment of amounts specified therein. He also referred to
Ex.D1, which is the original sale agreement (copy of which was exhibited as
Ex.P2). He points out that subsequent payments in February 2017 of an
aggregate sum of Rs.56 lakhs are reflected therein under the signature of the
8th defendant. Therefore, he submits that only Rs.2,56,00,000/- was paid by
the plaintiff to the 8th defendant and not Rs.3 crores.
12. By referring to the plaint, learned counsel submits that the three
cheques for the aggregate sum of Rs.50 lakhs were not referred to therein.
He also points out that paragraph X of the plaint does not mention that the
amount of Rs.44 lakhs was paid in cash. By referring to the cross-
examination of P.W.1, particularly questions 14 to 23 and the answers
thereto, learned counsel submits that P.W.1 admitted that the total payments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
acknowledged under Ex.D1, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 aggregate to a sum of
Rs.2,56,00,000/-. By further referring to questions 29 to 33 and the answers
thereto, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff's assertion that a sum of
Rs.44 lakhs was paid in cash is belied by the answers of P.W.1 inasmuch as
P.W.1 admits that no action was taken to get back the dishonoured cheques.
Thus, he contends that the conduct of the plaintiff does not support the
assertion that a sum of Rs.44 lakhs was paid in cash. By also referring to the
answers to questions 42 & 68, learned counsel submits that P.W.1 provided
the unacceptable and unbelievable answer that details of payments were
provided in the sale agreement and receipts only when more than one mode
of payment was involved. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the 8th
defendant is not liable for the suit claim with interest thereon.
13. By way of a brief rejoinder, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the 8th defendant has not disputed Ex.P6 and, in fact, admitted
the same. By also pointing out that no affidavit of admission/denial was filed
in response thereto, learned counsel submits that not only the signatures but
even the contents of Ex.P6 stand admitted. As a result, learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
submits that any oral evidence to disprove Ex.P6 is inadmissible. As regards
the plaintiff's decision not to call for a return of the dishonoured cheques in
spite of paying the sum of Rs.44 lakhs in cash, learned counsel submits that
the 8th defendant did not issue notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (the NI Act) or take any other measures in relation to
the dishonoured cheques.
Discussion, analysis and conclusion:
Issue No.6:
14. This issue relates to whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3 crores
to the defendants under sale agreement dated 25.07.2016 and joint venture
agreement dated 25.10.2017. The record shows that Ex.P6, which is the joint
venture agreement, was exhibited without objections and without denial on
the part of the 8th defendant. The said agreement records, in relevant part, as
under:
“ 1/ ek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;o nkw;go 2tJ ghh;l;oaplkpUe;J
ml;thd;!hf U:/3.00.00.000-? (U:gha; K:d;W nfho kl;Lk;) I
bgw;Wf;bfhz;Ls;shh;/ mjpy; U:/1.00.00.000-?Free Money- ahft[k;.
kPjKs;s U:/2.00.00.000-? Refund ml;thd;!; Mft[k;. ,ij
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
fl;olk; Koa[k;nghJ gzkhfnth my;yJ mjw;Fhpa (B3 or A2)
tPlhfnth 1tJ ghh;l;o 2tJ ghh;l;oaplk; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk;/”
Ex.P6 clearly bears the signature of the 8th defendant and the plaintiff has
signed as the Proprietrix of Dream Asset Promoters.
15. In the plaint, at paragraph X, while referring to the joint venture
agreement, the plaintiff pleaded, in relevant part, as under:
“X. .. .. Accordingly, the plaintiff entered into a
Joint Venture Agreement on 25-10-2017, with all the
defendants for the very same property for which sale
agreement was entered into already. On the day of
entering into the Joint Venture Agreement, i.e. on
25-10-2017, the plaintiff paid further sum of
Rs.44,00,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs only) and thus, a
total sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores only)
to the defendants. ”
In the written statement at paragraph 18, the 8th defendant has recorded
details of payments received from the plaintiff. In the table at paragraph 18,
payments received under serial nos.1 to 13 thereof are admitted and
aggregate to a sum of Rs.2,56,00,000/-. Therefore, the only disputed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
question in this regard is with regard to the payment of the additional claim
of Rs.44 lakhs by the plaintiff.
16. In the proof affidavit of Peter Arivarasan, reference was made to
the joint venture agreement and to the receipt by the 8th defendant of an
aggregate sum of Rs.3 crores as advance. P.W.1 was cross-examined with
regard to this issue by learned counsel for the 8th defendant. The relevant
questions and answers are set out below:
“Q29: Whether the Cheques under Ex.D3 to Ex.D5 were
dishonoured?
A: Yes.
Q30: Whether the difference amount mentioned in the
Joint Venture Agreement and the payment made under
Ex.D1, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 is in lieu of the dishonoured
Cheques?
A: Yes. They were seeking excess amount for personal
needs and for that the round of the amount and issued 3
Cheques for total sum of Rs.50 Lakhs.
Q31: When have you made the cash payment in lieu of 3
Cheques?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
A: Payment was made on 25.10.2017 when Joint Venture
Agreement was executed.
Q32: Whether you have demanded the 8th defendant to
return the dishonoured Cheques? If so how?
A: I have demanded orally at the time of execution of
Joint Venture Agreement and he has not returned.
Q33: Have you taken any action in writing or other
modes to get back the dishonoured Cheques?
A: No. I have not taken.
Q42: Is it the practice to mention about the details of the
mode of payment in respect of the payments made under
Ex.D1, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5?
A: The details of the mode of payment have been given
only upto the issuance of receipts. Witness adds: the
details of mode of payment is stated only when both cash
and Cheques are involved.
Q68: (Ex.P6 is shown to the witness) Whether the
details of payment and mode of payment are mentioned in
Ex.P6?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
A: No. It is not necessary to mention for single mode
payment. The total amount received by them is mentioned.
Q81: I put it to you that you have not made any cash
payment on the date of joint Venture.
A: I deny. I made a payment of Rs.44 Lakhs.
Q82: I put it to you that you have computed the amount
of Rs.3 Crores by including the value of the bounced
Cheques.
A: Yes.
As is noticeable from the above answers, P.W.1 states that cash payment of
Rs.44 lakhs was made on 25.10.2017 when the joint venture agreement was
executed. Paragraph X of the plaint also refers to the payment of Rs.44 lakhs
on 25.10.2017, albeit the mode of payment is not referred to therein. In the
answer to question 33, P.W.1 has admitted that no action was taken for
return of the dishonoured cheques. Learned counsel for the plaintiff explains
such inaction on the ground that the 8th defendant did not initiate
proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act or for any other relief in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
respect thereof.
17. According to learned counsel for the 8th defendant, the fact that
details of the mode of payment were specified in Exs.P2, P4 and P5,
whereas they are not mentioned in Ex.P6 would lead to the inference that a
sum of Rs.44 lakhs was not paid. Two significant aspects should be borne in
mind while assessing the evidence in this regard. The first being that Ex.P6
is an admitted document, including in relation to the contents thereof. The
second aspect is that this document was executed on 25.10.2017. The suit
was presented sometime in February 2021. During the 3 ½ year interregnum
between the execution of Ex.P6 and the presentation of the suit, the agreed
position is that there is no communication from the 8th defendant to the
plaintiff denying receipt of the sum of Rs.44 lakhs. Therefore, Issue no.6 is
decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the 8th defendant.
Issue No.7:
18. This issue relates to whether the plaintiff is entitled to
Rs.2,16,00,000/- towards construction, approval, marketing & labour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
Although the plaintiff exhibited 15 documents through P.W.1, none of these
documents deal with the alleged expenditure of a sum of Rs.2,16,00,000/-
towards construction and related activities. Even the proof affidavit of P.W.1
does not contain particulars of such expenditure by way of even a break-up.
Importantly, no supporting documents were exhibited. In light of the failure
of the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of the claim of
Rs.2,16,00,000/-, the only reasonable conclusion is that the claim of
Rs.2,16,00,000/- has not been proved. As regards such expenditure, at
paragraph 18 of the written statement, the 8th defendant has admitted that a
sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was incurred as expenditure by the plaintiff and that
this amount was reimbursed by the 8th defendant. Issue No.7 stands disposed
of by holding that this claim is proved by admission only to the extent of
Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
Issue Nos.1, 8 and 10:
19. These issues relate to whether defendants 1 to 8 are liable to pay
an aggregate sum of Rs.2,39,18,494/- with interest at 18% per annum on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
principal sum of Rs.1,31,00,000/- and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
suit claim in respect of the payment of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to the prospective
purchasers of villas from the plaintiff.
20. The agreed position is that the plaintiff had received an aggregate
sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- from the prospective purchasers of villas and that
the 8th defendant discharged the plaintiff's liability to these third party buyers
by paying a sum of Rs.2,38,00,000/- towards the same. While disposing of
Issue no.7, it was recorded that the plaintiff had not proved that she had
incurred expenditure of Rs.2,16,00,000/- towards construction cost.
Therefore, the computation of the suit claim at paragraph XVII of the plaint
is incorrect. In other words, in order to discharge liability towards the sum of
Rs.3 crores received from the plaintiff, the 8th defendant paid a sum of
Rs.1,25,00,000/- directly to the plaintiff. A further aggregate sum of
Rs.2,38,00,000/- was paid by the 8th defendant to discharge the plaintiff's
debt of Rs.2,60,00,000 to third party buyers of villas from the plaintiff.
21. Once credit is given for the above payments by the 8th defendant, a
total sum of Rs.3,85,00,000/- (Rs.2,60,00,000 + Rs.1,25,00,000) has been
paid towards a total liability of Rs.4,25,00,000/-(Rs.3,00,00,000 +
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
Rs.1,25,00,000), and only a sum of Rs.40 lakhs remains to be paid by the 8th
defendant to the plaintiff. Since the said amount was paid on 25.10.2017,
the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereon from the said date. By taking into
account interest rates prevailing at the relevant point of time and the fact that
it is a commercial transaction, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from 25.10.2017.
22. As the partial successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. A
sum of Rs.2,42,710/- was paid as Court fees. Since the plaintiff only
succeeded partly, the plaintiff shall be entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- towards
Court fees and, in addition, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards lawyer's fees and
other expenses.
23. In conclusion, the suit is decreed by directing the 8th defendant to
pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.40 lakhs with interest thereon at 12% per
annum from 25.10.2017. In addition, the 8th defendant is directed to pay an
aggregate sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) as costs to the
plaintiff towards Court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
23.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kj
Plaintiff's witness:
P.W.1 : Peter Arivarasan
Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 The photocopy of the power of attorney executed by
defendants 1 to 7 in favour of the 8th defendant dated
19.08.2011. (The learned counsel for the defendant has
objected that original not produced and not compared with
original)
Ex.P2 The photocopy of the sale agreement dated 25.07.2016. (The
learned counsel for the defendant has objected that original not
produced and not compared with original)
Ex.P3 The photocopy of the Developing power cum Memorandum of
Understanding dated 25.07.2016. (The learned counsel for the
defendant has objected that original not produced and not
compared with original)
Ex.P4 The photocopy of the receipt issued for Rs.1,00,00,000/- dated
12.09.2016. (The learned counsel for the defendant has
objected that original not produced and not compared with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
Exhibits Documents
original)
Ex.P5 The photocopy of the receipt issued for Rs.l ,00,00,000/- dated
07.04.2017. (The learned counsel for the defendant has
objected that original not produced and not compared with
original)
Ex.P6 The photocopy of the Joint Venture Agreement dated
25.10.2017. (The learned counsel for the defendant has
objected that original not produced and not compared with
original)
Ex.P7 The photocopy of the copy of the F.l.R No.376 of 2018 dated
05.09.2018. (The learned counsel for the defendant has
objected that original not produced and not compared with
original)
Ex.P8 The photocopy of the order in Crl. M.P. No.22050/2018 dated
21.12.2018.
Ex.P9 The photocopy of the order in Crl. M.P. No.140/2019 dated
04.01.2019.
Ex.P10 The photocopy of the order in Crl. O.P.No.682/2019 dated
17.06.2017.
Ex.P11 The photocopy of the order in Crl.O.P.No.682/2019 dated
09.08.2019.
Ex.P12 The photocopy of the order in Crl.O.P.No.682/2019 dated
30.08.2019.
Ex.P13 The photocopy of the order in Crl. O.P. No.682/2019 dated
13.09.2019.
Ex.P14 The photocopy of the order in Crl. O.P. No.25668/2019 dated
03.10.2019.
Ex.P15 The office copy of the notice sent by the plaintiff to the
defendant dated 23.01.2020 along with postal receipts,
acknowledgment and returned covers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
Documents exhibited by the defendant through P.W.1:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.D1 Sale agreement dated 25.07.2016
Ex.D2 Developing Power cum Memorandum of Understanding dated
25.07.2016
Ex.D3 Cheque No.206788 drawn on Axis Bank, dated 10.06.2027, for
a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
Ex.D4 Cheque No.206789 drawn on Axis Bank, dated 10.06.2017, for
a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
Ex.D5 Cheque No.206790 drawn on Axis Bank, dated 10.06.2017 for
a sum of Rs.10 lakhs
23.06.2025
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
