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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 283

PAREED PILLAY
P. V. GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF MADURAI LTD. – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The revision petition is against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Quilon in I. A. 2726/84 in O. S.249/83. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant filed the application under 0.1 R.10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleading the Export Credit And Guarantee Corporation Ltd., Bombay (E. C. G. C. Ltd.) as an additional defendant. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition holding that there is no necessity at all to implead the additional defendant.

2. The revision petitioner filed written statement along with defendants 3 to S. Issues were framed on 21-7-1984 and the case was posted for trial in the special list on 1-10-1984. In the meanwhile, revision petitioner filed I. A. 2726/84 to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd., Bombay as additional defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendants and the documents produced by the plaintiff it could be seen that E. C. G. C. Ltd. has expressly guaranteed protection to the plaintiff Bank against losses due to the non-payment by exporters (defendants) on account of their default and that the E. C. G. C. Ltd. is bound to pay under the po









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