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

2007 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
, J
Manindra Ch. Paul v. State of Tripura and Others


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P. Roy Barman
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Chakraborty

1. The judgment and decree dated 4-1-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Appeal No. 11/1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala passed in Money Suit No. 46/1993, has been assailed in this Second Appeal.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 46/1993 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala and the respondents were the defendants in the said suit.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are, in a nutshell, that the appellant as plaintiff instituted a Money Suit before the learned trial Court against the respondents (defendants). Before institution of the suit, the appellant's Advocate served notice upon the respondent No. 2 only. The suit was filed due to non - payment of repairing charges of an office vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 2, which was repaired on the basis of the work orders issued by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable, no cause of action arose, hit by principle




































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