Dismissed¶23

K.Ravi v. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars

Madras HC22 Jan 2025SA(MD)/526/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for default of a Section 100 CPC second appeal (S.A.(MD)No.526 of 2006) before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 22.01.2025 by V. Sivagnanam J.; appellants K. Ravi, K. Latha and Ramu absent and unrepresented at hearing; appeal against A.S.No.125 of 2005 (1st Additional Sub Court, Madurai) confirming O.S.No.29 of 2004 (District Munsif Court, Melur); respondents M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Pvt. Ltd. (Granite Division) and R.R. Granites; no appearance by either side; no costs; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

None; second appeal dismissed for default, no costs. ¶23

K.Ravi Vs M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.526 of 2006

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.526 of 2006

¶7

1.K.Ravi

¶8

2.K.Latha

¶9

3.Ramu ...Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Pvt. Ltd., (Granite Division), Rep. by its General Manager holding office at Mettupallayam Road, Coimbatore.

¶12

2.R.R.Granites

¶13

...Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2005 in A.S.No.125 of 2005 on the file of the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, dated 29.03.2005.

¶15

For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : No appearance

¶16

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

S.A.(MD)No.526 of 2006

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2005 in A.S.No.125 of 2005 on the file of the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, dated 29.03.2005.

¶22

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of the appellants. The appellant remained absent for the second time.

¶23

3.In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed for default.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

22.01.2025

¶26

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Page 2 of 4