E.Ramalingam v. H.Sukumaran
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeals against dismissal of a suit for recovery of money paid to secure public employment. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that such transactions are void and against public policy, denying relief.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.1856 of 2012 dated 01.08.2015 confirmed. No order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-12-2019
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.S.No.1260 of 2015
1.E.Ramalingam 2.R.Anandan 3.R.Nirmala 4.E.Lakshmi 5.J.Babu 6.S.Subramani 7.S.K.Neelamegan 8.D.Deepa 9.S.Baskaran 10.S.Suresh 11.P.Raja 12.C.Ravindar .. Appellants/Plaintiffs
vs.
1.H.Sukumaran 2.P.Haridoss Selvakumar (died on 20.12.2012) [set ex parte on 03.11.2006] .. Respondents/Defendants
Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1856 of 2012 on the file of the XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC XIX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 01.08.2015.
The First Appeal on hand is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC XIX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in O.S.No.1856 of 2012 dated 01.08.2015.
1
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the agreement for securing public employment through payment was void as opposed to public policy.
Whether the civil suit for recovery of money is maintainable given the illegal nature of the contract.
Whether the lower court's dismissal of the suit was perverse or lacked evidence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
E.Ramalingam and others
- respondent
H.Sukumaran and another
Coram
S.M.Subramaniam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court