respondent/plaintiff supporting the impugned order submits that in the present case SCC No.77 of 2008 has been ex parte decreed in favour ... following judgments:-
( 1) K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy ( 2011) 11 SCC 275
(2) Rejendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and others ( 2011
case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy , 2011 (11) SCC 275, it was held as under:
"12................................
(a) Section
others , 2004 (11) SCC 168 Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers & others, 2011 (11) SCC 275 : K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy ... justice."
In K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy : (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the provisions
Sadhana Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Law ... on 11 January, 2012
with Order VII Rule 11 CPC .
( VIII) Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others ; (2011) 9 SCC 678, particularly paragraphs ... compelling necessity.
( IX) K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy ; (2011) 11 SCC 275, particularly paragraph 12, wherein the Apex Court has held that the power
case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The respondent
Sadhana Sharma vs State Of U.P.Through Its Prin. Secy. Law ... on 11 January
order.
55. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy ; (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Court has exhaustively dealt with the scope of Section
Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 and submitted that even if there was no power bestowed upon
Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy , (2011) 11 SCC 275 and relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter
