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

2007 Supreme(SC) 1479

P.SATHASIVAM, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. – Appellant
Versus
Solanki Traders – Respondent


ORDER

1. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 143/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Medchal, filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.99200/- towards supply of material.

2. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC praying for a direction to defendants to furnish security for the suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. The Trial Court by its order dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the said application. It noted that though the plaintiff alleged that two post dated cheques given by the defendants towards payment of the bill amounts were dishonoured, it had neither disclosed the particulars of the said cheques, nor the dates of dishonour. It was of the view that merely making a bald statement that Rs.99,200/- was due from the defendants was not sufficient to make out prima facie case, when defendants had denied the suit claim.

3. The said order was challenged in revision by the plaintiff. Before the High Court, the plaintiff pointed out that the trial court had ignored its averment that defendants had removed their name board and were removing their machinery from the jurisdiction of





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