https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308070 The court allowed Defendant No. 3's application under Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting the claim against them. The claim for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs from Defendant No. 1 was dismissed due to lack of evidence and illegality of betting losses. The request for cancellation of the Sale Deed was denied, as it was linked to illegal activities. The claim for perpetual injunction was also dismissed due to changes in property ownership. The suit against Defendants No. 1 & 2 was ultimately dismissed without costs awarded. en-us Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 May 2023 15:41:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308070 The court allowed Defendant No. 3's application under Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting the claim against them. The claim for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs from Defendant No. 1 was dismissed due to lack of evidence and illegality of betting losses. The request for cancellation of the Sale Deed was denied, as it was linked to illegal activities. The claim for perpetual injunction was also dismissed due to changes in property ownership. The suit against Defendants No. 1 & 2 was ultimately dismissed without costs awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308070