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

1980 Supreme(Del) 116

RAJINDAR SACHAR, S.N.KUMAR
HARYANA BREWERIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ALUMINIUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.M.OBEROI, D.N.Mishra, J.C.BATRA, J.S.CHAHAL

Rajinder Sachar, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant s appeal against the order of Sultan Singh, J. by which he refused leave to defend the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant No. 1 appellant and defendant No. 2 (who is respondent No. 2 in the appeal) and thereafter passed a decree for Rs. 50,247-73 against the appellant and respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) IT is unfortunate that when it comes to setting the matters in a spirit of mutual accomodtion the public sector and the Government undertakings seem to behave in as small and petty a manner as unfortunately the individuals sometimes do. The allegation in the plaint is that the respondent No. I which is being managed by West Bengal government had supplied certain goods to the appellant. The goods were negotiated by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the appellant. The goods supplied were worth over 6 lakhs, and according to the plaintiff the balance amount of over Rs. 50,000. 00 has not been paid. Though at one stage in 1976, it appears that the appellant had acknowledged, according to the plaintiff, to pay this amount but asked for time because they were in financial difficulty, the appellant, it is alleged is now app










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