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

D.R.VITHAL RAO, K.R.RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, SUSHEELA CHELUVARAJU
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Appellant
Versus
MANAGER, A. C. C. LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice R. Vithal Rao, President— In all these 5 complaints, the parties, i.e., the complainant and the opposite parties are one and the same.

2. The point involved in all these complaints is one and the same.

3. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard in all the complaints.

4. All these complaints are herein disposed of by this common order.

5. The complainant, the Executive Engineer, No. 5, Canal Division, Davanagere, has sought the following relief from the opposite parties, that is, M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bangalore:

(1) Supply of 297 M. Tonnes of Cement in complaint No. 105/92; supply of 390 M.Ts of cement in complaint No. 106/92; supply of 190 M.Ts of cement in complaint No. 107/92; supply of 390 M.Ts of cement in complaint No. 108/92 and supply of 390 M.Ts of cement in complaint No. 109/92 at the agreed rate of Rs. 62.50 per bag;

(2) Damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,15,000/-, Rs. 2,15,000/-, Rs. 2,15,000/- and Rs. 2,15,000/-, respectively in all the complaints.

5. The complainant has averred that he had placed supply of cement orders with the opposite party for different quantities of cement i.e., 362 M.Ts under 5 different orders in C-105/92; 390 M.T


































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