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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 397

B.PADMARAJ
MOHANLAL GUGALIYA – Appellant
Versus
M. VINCENT – Respondent


Advocates:
S.J.Sanghavi

B. PADMARAJ, J.

( 1 ) -THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, the Civil Revision Petition itself was taken up for final disposal in view of the fact that the notice to respondent has been dispensed with since he has remained absent and was placed ex-parte before the trial court. Heard the arguments on merits and carefully perused the case records.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed a suit in S. G. No. 7533/1994 before the Court of Small causes Judge, Bangalore against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,300/- due on a commercial transaction. The respondent: held purchased textile goods from the petitioner on credit basis and the petitioner had prepared invoices in duplicate which were signed by the respondent and the originals of which were given to the respondent as per the mercantile practice followed by the 'business community. That the respondent had made certain payments to the petitioner and the petitioner had issued the receipts to the respondent in the very same way as the invoices were prepared. That the respondent though served with the summons in the suit, he had remained absent and was placed ex parte by the trial Court on 27. 6. 1995. That the petitioner had





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