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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 160

A.RAMAMURTHI
MRF Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
International Polymer Equipment – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mrs.Chitra Narayanan, Advocate for Petitioners.
M/s Kurian Associates, Advocates for Respondent

Judgment :

1. The second defendant in C.S. No. 442 of 1997 has filed these applications under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and also read with Order 9, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint as barred by law and as not disclosing any cause of action, to dispose of the suit on the preliminary issue of law and to postpone the settlement of the issues of fact after the settlement of issues of law, to strike out/amend the issues framed in. the suit on 3.12.98 and to direct the first respondent to make discovery on oath of all the documents in its power and possession relating to the claim for costs.

2. Thecase in brief for disposal of all these applications is as follows:

The first respondent has filed the suit against the applicant and the 2nd respondent for a declaration that the first respondent is not liable to pay the applicant any sum of money as alleged in the legal notice dated 15.9. 91 issued on behalf of the applicant, a sum of US dollars 62000 which is the cost already incurred by the 1st respondent in defending the s



























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