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

1972 Supreme(Guj) 11

T.U.MEHTA
KACHRABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
GOPALBHAI C. PATEL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: M.B.SHAH, V.S.PARIKH

T. U. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) ALL these revision applications arise out of the orders granting the petitioner conditional leave to defend in different suits filed against him by the different opponents of these revision applications in the court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The claim made by each of the opponents in all these suits is for the amount of Rs. 2 0 The contention of every opponent is that he has paid Rs. 2 0 to the petitioner as deposit for becoming a member of the proposed Sudhanshu Co-operative Housing Society. According to the opponents after the receipt of these amounts the petitioner failed in forming the Society and also failed in purchasing any land for the proposed Society. The opponents therefore claim that the petitioner should refund the amount of deposit given by each of them. As against this the main contention which is raised by the petitioner in all these suits is that each of the opponents had paid the amount of Rs. 2 0 not as deposit but as contribution towards the purchase of land for the Society. The facts of the case reveal that at an earlier stage the petitioner had entered into a Banakhat under which he had paid an earnest amount of Rs. 15 0 The petitioner


















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