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

Kumari Sanju Panda
Charanjit Pal Jindal – Appellant
Versus
L. N. Metalics – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Amar Kumar Mohanty, K.A. Guru and S.K. Mohapatra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M. Agarwal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Kumari Sanju Panda, J.—The petitioner in this revision challenges the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2010 confirming the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in I.C.C. Case No. 259 of 2008.

2. The facts leading to the present revision are as follows:

Opposite party-company filed a complaint case stating therein that it dealt with production, manufacturing, marketing, and selling of sponge iron and other allied iron ore products. The revision petitioner, who was one of its customer, placed orders through its agent M/s. Jayanti Ispat, Raipur during 21.6.2007 and 24.12.2007 under different invoices and challans. Accordingly, various materials were supplied to the petitioner by the opposite party. The petitioner also made payment in intervals, however, by 24.12.2007 an amount of Rs. 72,22,037/- remained outstanding on the petitioner. As such, a request was made to clear the outstanding amount. On such request, in the month of December, 2007, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid. Thereafter, on 27.2.2008 the opposite party sent a written request to the petitioner for clearing the outstandi

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