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

2004 Supreme(Del) 516

P.C.JAIN
INDIAN IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NADA BROTHERS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DIPAK BHATTACHARYA, Sanjay Gupta, Vandana Verma, Varsha Kriplani

R. C. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of the above referred three applications moved on behalf of the respective defendant under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the summary suits filed by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts and circumstances leading to the above applications in brief are that M/s Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited has filed the above referred three suits under the provisions of Rule 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 63,85,547. 37 paise (claim in Suit No. 2290/1994); Rs. 74,17,775. 67 paise (claim in Suit No. 2335/1994); and for recovery of Rs. 16,18,344. 47 (claim in Suit No. 2291/1994) with pendente lite and future interest with the averments and allegations that it is a Government company, a subsidiary of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and the plaints have been signed and the suit instituted by authorised representative of the plaintiff namely Mr. N. Sarkar. The plaintiff, inter alia, is engaged in the business of supply of its iron and steel products to its consumers, traders and merchants on the terms and conditions contained in the delivery order, authorisation letter, gate pass and del





















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