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

N.A.BRITTO
Rekha Kamat Tarcar – Appellant
Versus
Nath Steel Equipment Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent NO. 1:Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

N.A. Britto, J.— Heard Shri P.P. Singh on behalf of the petitioner and Shri A.F. Diniz on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

2. The name of respondent No.2 was ordered to be deleted, at the request of the petitioner, by order dated 18.3.2010.

3. The petitioner was a Technical Director of respondent No.2, but according to her, she had resigned w.e.f. 13.6.2001. She was not a party to the suit filed by respondent No.1 or the Criminal Case bearing No.62/OA/95B which was filed by respondent No.1 against the Company and its Managing Director, Shri V.K. Chawla.

4. Special Civil Suit No. 226/95/A came to be decreed by judgment dated 29.10.2005 in the sum of Rs. 69,51,746 with interest at the rate of 23% from 5.5.1995. The suit was decreed against Ravish Infusions Ltd., a limited Company with its registered office at B2, La Marina, Miramar, Panaji-Goa, represented by Shri V.K. Chawla, Managing Director of Ravish Infusions Ltd., B2, La Marina, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. It appears that in the year 2004, certain properties of respondent No.2, Company were attached by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the said criminal case and the petitioner herein was given and had accepted the custody of the pr

















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