Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SACHDEVA ENGINEERS versus HARI CHAND GOYAL, DIRECTOR & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Sachdeva Engineers v. Hari Chand Goyal, Director & Ors - COCP-878-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 12600 (14 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.O.C.P. No. 878 of 2002

Date of Decision: 21.12.2006.

M/s Sachdeva Engineers

....Petitioner.

Versus

Hari Chand Goyal, Director and others

...Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.
Present:- Mr.Deepak Suri,Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.G.S.Cheema, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

Mr.Kunal Dabra, Advocate for

Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate

for respondent No.5.

****

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL)

In deference to the order dated December 15, 2006, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has handed over the Demand Draft No.006206 dated 21.12.2006, drawn at Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.135-136, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, for a sum of Rs.3,08,250.00 to learned counsel for the petitioner towards full and final payment of balance amount to which the petitioner is entitled.

In this manner, the undertaking given by the respondents before this court stands complied with. Rather, that respondent No.5 has paid excess amount of Rs.41,750/- to the petitioner which learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to refund to respondent No.5 through his counsel within one week.

In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, further, undertakes that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the petitioner shall also be withdrawn immediately, but not later than two weeks from today.

Respondent No.4 is brother of respondents No.3 and 5. Prima- facie, he is also equally liable to honour the undertaking given before this Court. However, these proceedings were dropped against him as he was reported to have gone to Uganda. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 on the other hand state that the said respondent No.4 is presently residing in Delhi. Since, respondents No.3 and 5 have discharged the total liability which includes the share of their brother-respondent No.4, also, they shall be entitled to seek recovery thereof from respondent No.4 to the extent the liability falls to his share in accordance with law and until the said part of liability is discharged by respondent No.4, there shall remain a charge on his assets including his share in the H.No.A/276, New Friends colony, New Delhi.

If respondents No.3 and 5 have any additional claim in respect of the amount paid by them to the petitioner in these proceedings, they shall be entitled to raise such claim before an appropriate forum, if so permissible in law.

In the light of the above noticed subsequent events, undertaking and the statements made on behalf of the parties, no further action is required to be taken in this petition, which is accordingly disposed of.

Rule discharged.

(SURYA KANT)

December 21,2006. JUDGE

Reema


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.