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

Rakesh Kumar Ralhan – Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondent


ORDER

I.D. Bali, Member - The facts of the complaint, stated in brief are that the complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm which had started business in the name and style of M/s. B.R. Enterprises at Natha Singh Building. Opposite Mehar Hotel, Thandi Sarak. G.P.O. Dalhousie. Distt. Chamba. The said firm was started by the complainant in the end of December, 1989 and the business of the firm related to the sale/purchase of Black and White Coloured Television Sets, V.C. Rs. V.C. Ps. and other electronic goods.

2. After the functioning of the aforesaid firm was started by the complainant. he approached respondent No.3 for sanctioning a cash limit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in favour of the new firm and a cash credit limit of Rs. 2,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by respondent No.3 on 2-1-1990 and the stock in trade was hypothecated on the same day by the complainant to the respondent after inspecting and physically verifying the said stock as per the inspection note of dated 2-1-1990. The said note has been produced by the complainant in evidence and placed on record as Annexure C-l. The hypothecation deed was also executed by the complainant in favour of the responde

































































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