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

2000 Supreme(Del) 611

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.B.GOEL
ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.S.Vinayak, SANJAY DUA, V.SESHAGIRI RAO

MUKUL MUDGAL

( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code, seeking a partial decree op the basis of admissions said to be made by the defendant No. 1 in its written statement.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the averments regarding admissions made by defendant No. 1 in its written statement to the following effect:-

"para 3 The answering defendant cannot be held liable for the acts of omission or commission by or on behalf of defendant No. 2 as also specifically stated in para 18 of Dealership Agreement. The defendant No. 2 used to book the vehicles and accept the payment from the customers. The answering defendant in lieu of the payment received by it from the defendant no. 2 delivered vehicles to defendant No. 2 and the invoices were also raised in the name of defendant No. 2. Para 7 - In so far as the payment of price to the dealer for the booking of vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the customer makes the payment to the dealer by way of demand draft in favour of this defendant - Para 9 - On termination of the dealership of the defendant no. 2, all pending booking of defendant no. 2. were








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