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

G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR, C.G.SETHU LAKSHMI
M. P. Krishnanunni – Appellant
Versus
M. O. Hassan Kuthoos Marikar Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Complainant: Philip M. Prasad.

ORDER

C.G. Sethulekshmi, Member - The complainant in this case had placed an order with the opposite party who is a dealer of Ambassador Cars. The case of the complainant was that in the month of June 1990 the opposite party informed the complainant that if full price 'of the car was given, it could deliver the car within a period of 10 to 12 weeks. Accordingly the complainant obtained a loan from the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Kalpathy Branch, Palghat and sent a Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.1,58,400/- towards the full cost of the car to the opposite party through the Nedungadi Bank on 20.7.1990. The D.D. was received by the opposite party and for that a receipt dated 23.7.1990 was also issued by them. The allegation of the complainant was that the opposite party did not supply the car as promised. As the opposite party did not care to deliver the car, the complainant approached the Nedungadi Bank and the Bank through its lawyer issued a lawyer notice dated 13.2.1991 to the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant himself also sent a notice on 21.3 .1991. There was no response from the opposite party.

2. Meanwhile the Bank started debiting the loan account of the complainant with in













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