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

2005 Supreme(Del) 477

B.A.KHAN, ANIL KUMAR
SNOWHITE APPARELS LTD – Appellant
Versus
K. S. A. TECHNOPAK (I) LTD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amit S.Chadha, Avnish, Kunal Sinha, Sunial Kumar

( 1 ) APPELLANT is the defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs. 6 lacs or so filed by first respondent. It had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that this suit was barred by time which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 13. 05. 2004. Appellant assails the order and asserts that suit was time barred and the plaint warranted outright rejection for this in any case.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by first respondent is based on the work done by this respondent under the agreement dated 26. 08. 1993 executed between the parties. In this it is claimed that first respondent (plaintiff) had raised a bill for Rs. 5. 5 lacs vide invoice dated 28. 08. 1995 and had also raised one more invoice for Rs. 1. 5 lacs and rupees one lacs but Appellant (defendant) had failed to pay this amount. Thereafter, two legal notices were served on the Appellant which were replied on 18. 09. 1997 and 12. 01. 1998 denying the liability giving rise to the cause of action to file the suit.

( 3 ) APPELLANT filed I. A. No. 8432/2002 under Order 7 Rule 11 and sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was time barred because the plaintiff (first responde














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