Back
KRISHNA RAO
Mamta Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
APL Metals Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. service of summons (Para 9) |
| 3. plaintiff's evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. defendant's argument on delivery (Para 13) |
| 5. court's view on evidence (Para 14) |
| 6. court's findings on liability (Para 15) |
| 7. judgment and order (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. decree drawn (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for Decree for a sum of Rs.18,50,257.58 along with interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of retail and wholesale of lead and lead ingots. The defendant is engaged in production and supply of refined lead, lead alloys and lead oxides.
3. The defendant was in need for Lead for its manufacturing process, therefore, the defendant, being aware that the plaintiff is a whole-seller of Lead, approached the plaintiff. After negotiations between the parties, it was agreed that the defendant would place purchase orders upon the plaintiff for supply of lead at specific rates and the plaintiff would supply Lead and raise invoices upon the defendant and thereafter the defendant will make payment in terms of the invoices raised by
The plaintiff successfully proved the delivery of goods and the defendant's liability for unpaid dues, entitling the plaintiff to recover the amount with interest.
Money suit – Demand raised against supply of goods has to be allowed.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to provide credible evidence results in upholding the original judgment.
Admissions made by a party can serve as substantive evidence, allowing the court to grant a decree in the absence of a defense.
Summary judgment may be granted when there are no triable issues, and the burden is on the defendant to prove otherwise, especially in claims involving clear contractual terms and documented transact....
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the jural relationship and actual supply of goods, resulting in no entitlement for recovery of the claimed amount.
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
