SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 975

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Sri Rama Agencies – Appellant
Versus
Machani & Machani Agrochemicals – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Sri K. Sitaram.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri P. Veera Reddy.

JUDGMENT

The respondent herein filed O.S.No.163 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the appellant, for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,21,819=50 ps., towards the cost of pesticides, supplied to the appellant. In the written-statement filed by the appellant, existence of transactions of supply of pesticides, on various occasions, was admitted, and it was contended that there are no outstanding dues. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 17-02-2003. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.52 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal, according to law. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u) of C.P.C.

2. Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower Appellate Court directed remand of the case, as though it is a matter of course. He contends that the observations and findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court warranted dismissal of the appeal; whereas the discretion vested in it, under Rule 23-A of Order XLI C.P.C., was used, without


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top