J.K.MAHESHWARI
Rajsai Traders – Appellant
Versus
Vinod – Respondent
1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenging the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Eighth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 10B/2016 directing the defendants/petitioners to furnish the security to the tune of Rs.1,16,00,000/- for satisfaction of the Court, this petition has been preferred.
2. The facts leading to file the present case are, plaintiff/respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) seeking recovery to the tune of Rs.1,16,00,000/- against the defendants/petitioners. The said suit was based upon business transactions showing sale and purchase of certain goods of the worth Rs.3,13,30,471/- to which payments of Rs.2,70,19,461/- have been made in the year 2011-12. In the year 2012-13, the purchase of goods worth Rs.6,65,92,473/- were made to which payments of Rs.6,63,27,755/- were made. For the year 2013-14, the purchase of goods worth Rs.33,13,250/- were made to which payments of Rs.31,04,999/- were made. It is not in dispute that the summons under Order XXXVII Rule 2 in Form No. 4 in Appendix B was served on the defendants.
3.
Devendra Kumar Jain Versus G.N. Goyal reported in 2006(1) MPWN 75
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited -Versus-Hubtown Limited reported in AIR 2016 SC 5321
Mrs. Raj Duggal Versus Ramesh Kumar Bansal reported in AIR 1990 SC 2218
Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. Versus Chamanlal Bros. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1698
Rajesh Ahuja Versus Manoj Mittal & another reported in AIR 1998 SC 2931
Santosh Kumar Versus Bhai Mool Singh reported in AIR 1958 SC 321
State Bank of Hyderabad Versus Rabo Bank reported in (2015) 10 SCC 521
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.