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

2011 Supreme(All) 2642

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA
RAJ KISHORE VAISH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
In person.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Appellant appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) against the impugned order dated 30.5.2011, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur whereby application under Order 33 Rule 2 of C.P.C. moved by the appellant in a pending suit has been rejected.

3. While assailing the impugned order, the appellant, in person, submits that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had rejected the application on unfounded ground. It could not have been rejected under Order 33 Rule 2 C.P.C.

4. It shall be appropriate to give brief facts, pleaded before the trial Court as borne out from the record.

5. The plaintiff-appellant claims to have established an industry in the name of M/s. Laxmi Rubber and Chemical Industries, Sitapur and registered with the Sales Tax Department controlled by the defendant No. 1 i.e. State of U.P. According to the appellant, registration was done from 6.2.1986 having registration certificate No. S.T.0053971. However, the appellant could not do the business due to alleged high handedness on the part of the Sales Tax Department. The different applications submitted by the appellan


























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