LODHA, L.S.MEHTA
Birdhi Chand Sumermal – Appellant
Versus
Ramdeo – Respondent
2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents is that they carry on business at Sambhar along with one Ramvallabh who has been made a proforma-defendant, and defendants Nos.l to 3 also carry on business at Sambhar under the name and style Firm Birdhichand Sumermal, which is a partnership firm. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that on Magh Badi 4, Smt. 2003 equivalent to 10-1-47 the defendant firm Birdhichand Sumermal purchased bales of gunny bags from the plaintiffs in two lots to be delivered on Fagan Sudi Poonam, Smt. 2003 equivalent to 7-3-47, one of 225 bales at the rate of Rs. 80/14/- per hundred bags and the other of 260 bales at the rate of Rs. 80/15/- per hundred bags. Thus, the total contractual price of these 485 bales of gunny bags came to Rs. 1,96,203/2/-
(37) Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi vs. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi ( AIR 1962 S.C. 378 )
(19) Narbadabai vs. Natverlal Chunilal Bhalakia ( AIR 1953 Bom 386 )
(30) Chandrabhaga Sadashiv vs. Bhikachand ( AIR 1959 Bom 549 )
(26) Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadri vs. Narsiga Bhaskarsa Kabadi ( AIR 1961 SC 1077 )
(21) Firm Gulzarimal Gheesalal vs. Firm Rameshchandra Radheshyam ( AIR 1959 Raj. 162 )
(27) Mohammad Yusuf vs. Mohd. Hussain ( AIR 1964 Mad. 1—F. B. )
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.