IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Anima Hazarika and C.R. Sarma, JJ.
The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department, The Chief Engineer (Power), Eastern Electrical Zone, Department of Power, Govt., The Superintendent Engineer (Power), A.P. Electrical Department of Power, and The Executive Engineer Deomali Electric Division, Department of Power – Appellants
Vs.
T.C. Syndicate, A Proprietorship firm situated represented by its Proprietor Sri Tapio Charu, S/o Sri Charu Talla – Respondent
RFA No. 07 of 2009, [Alongwith RFA No. 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2009]
Decided On: 03.03.2011
Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 - Sections 80, 79 and Order 27 Rule 3 and 5A of and 96 - Proper scrutiny - Money Suits - Appeals, involve similar question of law and facts and parties are represented by same set of Advocates - Suits, which have given rise to these appeals, have been filed by same power of attorney holder on behalf of Plaintiffs - Therefore, for sake of convenience and as agreed to by learned Counsel, appearing for both parties, we prefer to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order – Held, appeals, requiring interference with impugned judgments and decrees - Accordingly, these appeals are allowed on contest and impugned judgments and decrees, as indicated above, passed in Money Suit are set aside and quashed - Consequently, all Money Suits stand dismissed - No costs - Appeal allowed
C.R. Sarma, J.
1. The above mentioned seven appeals, involve similar question of law and facts and the parties are represented by the same set of Advocates. The suits, which have given rise to these appeals, have been filed by the same power of attorney holder on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, we prefer to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.
2. The respective Respondents, who instituted the Money Suit Nos. 2 of 2008, 3 of 208, 4 of 2008, 5 of 2008, 6 of 2008, 7 of 2008 and 8 of 2008 for recovery of money from the Appellants, are the sole proprietorial firms, represented by their Proprietors, as indicated below:
(i) M/s T.C. Syndicate, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Sri Tapio Charu, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 07 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 02 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the Appellants, seeking realization of Rs.16,59,736/- being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the said Appellants.
(ii) M/s D.L. Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Sri Tapio Charu, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 08 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 03 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the appellants seeking realization of Rs.24,05,109/-, being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the later.
(iii) M/s Shaman Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Sri Vincent Tongluk, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 09 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 04 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the appellants, seeking realization of Rs.17,17,961/-, being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the later.
(iv) M/s Cho-Te Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Smti Ngunkhaw Ngandam, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 10 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 05 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the Appellants seeking realization of Rs.13,36,705/-, being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the later.
(v) M/s K.P. Popo Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Smti Ngunkhaw Ngandam, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 11 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 06 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the Appellants, seeking realization of Rs.27,22,811/-, being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the later.
(vi) M/s H.C. Agency, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Master Hage Chanda (minor), which is the Respondent in RFA No. 12 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 07 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, against the Appellants seeking realization of Rs.20,23,478/-, being the principal amount and interest thereon, towards supply of electrical goods to the Appellant No. 4 on the basis of the work order issued by the later.
(vii) M/s J.S. Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, namely, Sri Jathang Sumnyan, which is the Respondent in RFA No. 13 of 2009, instituted the Money Suit No. 08 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Deputy Commis
Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2740
Karam Kapahi and Ors. v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 753
Ghanshyam Das and Ors. v. Dominion of India and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 46
Raghunath Das v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1969 SC 674
Kalyan Mal v. Ahmad Uddin Khan and Anr. AIR 1934 PC 208
Chandra Kishore Tewari and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Lucknow in Charge Court of Wards
Union of India v. Surjit Singh Atwal (1979) 1 SCC 520
State of Punjab v. Geeta iron and Brass Works Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1608
Karpagathachi and Ors. v. Nagarathinathachi AIR 1965 SC 1752
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 439
Shikharchand v. Bari Bai AIR 1974 MP 75
Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120
Lord Buckmaster in Fakrunissa v. Moulvi Izarus Sadik 25 C.W.N. 866:AIR 1921 P.C. 55
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.