AMIT BANSAL
J. H. Jewelers – Appellant
Versus
Umed Chindaliya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for recovery of funds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observes non-joinder of parties relevant. (Para 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17) |
| 3. defendants contest claims on procedural grounds. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. bank's liability limited by compliance with banking norms. (Para 24 , 27 , 36 , 58) |
| 5. grant of injunction and recovery decree. (Para 69 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. The present suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.10,17,42,213/along with pendente lite and future interest and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the properties purchased from the money misappropriated from the plaintiff.
2. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that:
2.1. The plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms.
2.2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling precious metal jewellery. The plaintiff has been in this business since 1996.
2.3. The defendant no.1 joined the plaintiff company in the year 2011 as an accountant. During his tenure, the defendant no.1 gained the trust of his employers. The defendant no.1 was solely and exclusively responsible for depositing the cheques
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.