Back
KRISHNA RAO
AD Electrosteel Co. Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Greco International Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. Defendant no.2 has filed the present application being G.A. No. 1 of 2023 for rejection of plaint against the defendant no. 2 or in the alternative to delete the name of the defendant no. 2 from the array of the party in the plaint filed in CS-COM 470 of 2024 (Old No. C.S. 35 of 2023). In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree against the defendant no. 1 for a sum of USD 1,40,235.00 and USD 600 Per month on account of storage and security charges against the defendant no.1 and other prayers including interest. Admittedly in any of the prayer of the suit, the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant no. 2.
2. As per the case made out by the plaintiff, after negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.1 issued purchased order upon the plaintiff on 18th June, 2019 of 100 sets (100 units each of male and female) of Non-Shock MCA DA Type Coupler (Drawing No. 27413/11) supplied as complete units -complaint equivalent Coupler sets (Paris) as per plaintiffs drawing No. ADE 09-53 and for the consideration of USD 430,000.00 with several terms and conditions out of which one condition that the inspection by Bure
A party is not necessary for adjudication if their presence does not affect the plaintiff's ability to prove its case independently.
Warranty obligations are binding, and a sole proprietor cannot evade liability owing to the nature of the business structure.
The presence of the parties is necessary to effectively adjudicate on the real controversy in issue in the proceedings, and findings on merits are not justified while examining an application under O....
Defendant No.2 cannot be considered a necessary or proper party to the suit as he cannot be made liable for the financial liabilities of defendant No.1.
Defendant No. 2 is deemed a necessary and proper party for adjudicating the claims raised by the Plaintiff due to the absence of contractual obligation and the need for effective resolution of disput....
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.
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
