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

1982 Supreme(Guj) 220

A.S.QURESHI
RATILAL B. SHAH and CO. – Appellant
Versus
PARI PRAFULLCHANDRA KANTILAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: C.V.JANI, M.S.PANDYA, N.S.SHETH

A. S. QURESHI, J.

( 1 ) QURESHI J. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 against the judgment and order dated 17/08/1982 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Mehsana granting the defendants leave to defend on condition that they deposit a sum of Rs. 20 901 in the Court.

( 2 ) MR. C. V. Jani the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 20 901 in a suit where the entire claim of the plaintiff is Rs. 24 900 is unreasonable and the same deserves to be set aside. Mr. Jani has urged that in their leave to defend the present petitioners had pointed out to the trial Court that the claim arises out of the amount alleged by the plaintiff to be due at the foot of the account. The defendants have not only challenged the correctness and accuracy of the amounts alleged to have been advanced to the defendants from time to time but also the rate of interest stated to be at 36% per annum. The defendants have also averred that the plaintiff used to deduct the amount of interest at the rate of 36% per annum at the time of paying the loan amount.






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