Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB versus M/S SISBRO SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab v. M/s Sisbro Scientific Industries - RSA-3242-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1638 (10 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 3242 of 2003 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3242 of 2003

Date of Decision: March 16, 2006

State of Punjab

.....Appellant

Vs.

M/s Sisbro Scientific Industries

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Sushant Maini, Deputy

Advocate General, Punjab

for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff State of Punjab is in appeal. It has lost concurrently in a suit for recovery of Rs.48864/-.

The facts which emerge from the record show that earlier a suit for recovery was filed by the defendant firm. The plaintiff claims that some excess payment had been made by the State of Punjab, during the pendency of the first suit.

Both the courts have held that the suit filed by the present plaintiff- State of Punjab was not maintainable inasmuch as, firstly, the plea was available to the present plaintiff in the earlier proceedings, and therefore, the principles of R.S.A. No. 3242 of 2003 [2]

constructive res-judicata are attracted. Secondly, it has been held that in any case, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the suit inasmuch as all the question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree had been passed, were to be decided by the Executing Court. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff- State of Punjab was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by it also failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 16, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


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.