Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA
M/S. M K V ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
SITAS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of business transaction between parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defendant's denial of obligations and claims against the plaintiff. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence supporting plaintiff's claim. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's decision to dismiss the revision petition. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
2. Defendant in SC No.564/2017 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH – 24).
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. Plaintiff is a firm which is involved in Non-Destructive Testing Services Company (hereinafter ‘NDT’ for short) and providing various NDT services for the price through its employees.
3.2. Defendant is a customer of the plaintiff and availed NDT services from the plaintiff. Defendant has signed the consent form with the plaintiff in token of availing the NDT services from the plaintiff by accepting the terms and conditions and services of the plaintiff.
3.3. Plaintiff p
The absence of a work order does not negate the enforceability of a claim for services rendered, especially when supported by adequate documentation corroborating the transaction.
The court ruled that failing to comply with contract terms related to approval processes justified the cancellation of the work order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the authority to consider evidence and provide a proper opportunity for explanation, ensuring the principles of natural justice....
Mere existence of a Clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the sho....
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
The court upheld that a party may be compensated for work done despite absence of a written contract when the other party benefits, reinforcing principles of unjust enrichment under Section 70 of the....
The respondent must prove the existence of a special business practice, and mis-description in the plaint does not necessarily result in non-suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
