SHAM SUNDER
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Continental Construction Limited – Respondent
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2005, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs (now appellants), and the judgment and decree, dated 07.03.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.
2. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, they had supplied sand to defendants, vide bill No. 2, dated 18.06.93, worth Rs. 52,289.60/-, vide bill No. 4, dated 28.06.1993 for an amount of Rs. 73,427.20/-, and vide bill No. 6, dated 06.07.1993 for an amount of Rs. 11,417.60/-. It was stated that, in this manner, the sand for a total amount of Rs. 1,37,134/-, was supplied, to the defendants, by the plaintiffs/appellants. The sand, was received, and receipts were duly signed, by the employees of defendants. The defendants, did not make payment of the amount, due against them. A legal notice, was served, upon them, for payment of the amount, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendants, to make payment of the amount, due against them, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery with interest, was filed
Bloom Dekor Limited V/s. Subhash Himat Lal Desai
Harjeet Singh V/s. Amrik Singh
Jaswant Singh V/s. Custodian Of Evacuee Property, New Delhi
Kerala Arecanut Stores V/s. M:s.. Ramkishore & Sons
M:s. Haldiram Bhujiawala V/s. M:s.. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar
Rao Sahib V/s. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (Dead By Lrs.)
Sunderlal & And Sons V/s. Y.N. Singh
Puran Mal Ganga Ram Firm V/s. The Central Bank Of India Ltd.
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.