REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MUKESH KUMAR Appellant

V/S

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M/S.. RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. V. GANESH PROPERTY [REFERRED TO]
R. KUPPAYYEE V. RAJA GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
MADVAN NAIR V. BHASKAR PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
RAO SAHEB VS. RANGNATH GOPALRAO KAWATHEKAR DEAD [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM KERALA VS. KAYCEE PLANTATIONS AND CANNINGS TRICHUR [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED VS. SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI:ARVIND B SHETH [REFERRED TO]
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA VS. ANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
H P PYAREJAN VS. DASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR VS. KAKI [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM VS. SHIVRAJ FINE ART LITHO WORKS [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. S N GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL AND SONS VS. YAGENDRA NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KERALA ARECANUT STORES VS. RAMKISHORE AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
V V TEXTILES VS. MAHAVIR FABRICS [REFERRED TO]
PURAN MAL GANGA RAM FIRM VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
HARJEET SINGH VS. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2005, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs (now appellants), and the judgment and decree, dated 07.03.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs/appellants, they had supplied sand to defendants, vide bill No. 2, dated 18.06.93, worth Rs. 52,289.60/-, vide bill No. 4, dated 28.06.1993 for an amount of Rs. 73,427.20/-, and vide bill No. 6, dated 06.07.1993 for an amount of Rs. 11,417.60/-. It was stated that, in this manner, the sand for a total amount of Rs. 1,37,134/-, was supplied, to the defendants, by the plaintiffs/appellants. The sand, was received, and receipts were duly signed, by the employees of defendants. The defendants, did not make payment of the amount, due against them. A legal notice, was served, upon them, for payment of the amount, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendants, to make payment of the amount, due against them, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery with interest, was filed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :-

Click here to view full judgment.

MUKESH KUMAR Vs. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address