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

A.L.BAHRI, RAM LAL GUPTA
KHANNA ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
MANJEET SINGH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. J.M. Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member — Agitated by the order of the District Forum, Ropar dated 25.4.96, the appellant before us is the opposite party before the District Forum. In our order, we shall be referring the parties as they were before the District Forum i.e. appellant as opposite party and the respondent as complainant.

2. The complainant who has done his B.D.S. course in the year 1992 and got a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- sanctioned from the Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation approached the opposite party-M/s. Khanna Enterprises, Chandigarh for supply of the Dental X-ray machine alongwith Dental chair (Confident's Compact Clinic with attached unit) and other material. Vide Ex. A/12 dated 3.6.93 the opposite party issued the quotation to the complainant mentioning the rates of the material cited therein and for the disposal of this appeal only the rates of dental chair with attached unit (Confident Compact Clinic) are relevant and the rate of the said dental chair had been quoted to be Rs. 35,000/- and the full sale price of the material to be supplied vide quotation is Rs. 1,06,000/- and as per terms and conditions of the quotation the rates of goods are F.O.R. destination. Ex. A/





















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