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

2004 Supreme(Del) 386

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
KAILASHPATI STEEL INDUSTRIES – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DIPAK BHATTACHARYA, Mahabir Singh, S.P.AGARWAL, VAGISH SHARMA, Vandana Verma

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit which is filed by the plaintiff is one under order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure being filed as a summary suit and praying for a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,20,47,516/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest and costs of the suit. The statutory notices were issued upon which the defendants entered appearance in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter the plaintiff took out summons for judgment also in statutory form which were served on the defendants and on service thereof the defendants filed applications seeking for leave to defend the suit. In the said applications filed by the defendants seeking for leave to defend, an objection is raised that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as nowhere in the plaint it was disclosed as to how Mr. Vijay Kumar Dave had been authorised to sign, verify the plaint and institute the suit. It was submitted that no document has been filed on record and no statement has been made in the plaint disclosing s









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