REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER Appellant

V/S

T.C.SYNDICATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LORD BUCKMASTER IN FAKRUNISSA VS. MOULVI IZARUS SADIK [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRATAB BRIJMOHANDAS AND ORS. VS. GAVRISHANKAR KASHIRAM [REFERRED TO]
KARPAGATHACHI VS. NAGARATHINATHACHI [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GEETA IRON AND BRASS WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SURJIT SINGH ATWAL [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DASS VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM SINGH DUGAL AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM SINGH DUGAL AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYA VS. ANIL PANJWANI [REFERRED TO]
JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI VS. INDUSIND BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
KARAM KAPAHI VS. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST [REFERRED TO]
JEEVAN DIESELS AND ELECTRICALS LTD VS. JASBIR SINGH CHADHA HUF [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
GOPESH CHANDRA DAS VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
AUTO ENGINEERING WORKS VS. BANSAL TRADING CO [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHARCHAND VS. BARI BAI [REFERRED TO]
BHAGVAN MANAJI MARWADI VS. HIRAJI PREMAJI MARWADI [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN MAL VS. AHMAD UDDIN KHAN [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE TEWARI VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LUCKNOW IN CHARGE COURT OF WARDS, SISSENDI ESTATE [REFERRED TO]
GANDABHAI GULABCHAND VS. BALKRISHNA VAMAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned seven appeals, involve similar question of law and facts and the parties are represented by the same set of Advocates. The suits, which have given rise to these appeals, have been filed by the same power of attorney holder on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, we prefer to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The respective Respondents, who instituted the Money Suit Nos. 2 of 2008, 3 of 208, 4 of 2008, 5 of 2008, 6 of 2008, 7 of 2008 and 8 of 2008 for recovery of money from the Appellants, are the sole proprietorial firms, represented by their Proprietors, as indicated below:

(3.) All the above mentioned sole proprietors of the Plaintiff-firms aforesaid, authorized Mr. Rajesh More, by executing General Power of Attorney, to do the following works on their behalf:

Click here to view full judgment.

COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY Vs. T C SYNDICATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address