Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM versus M/S KRISHNA RICE MILL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam v. M/s Krishna Rice Mill - RSA-3592-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 670 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.M.No.8800-C of 2004 &

R.S.A.No.3592 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 03, 2006.

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam .... Appellant Vs.

M/s Krishna Rice Mill .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Padamkant, Advocate

for the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

C.M.No.8800-C of 2004 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

R.S.A.3592 of 2004 :

The defendant-Nigam and another have approached this Court through the present appeal. The defendants have concurrently failed before the two courts below. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff firm claiming that the notice dated November 05, 1998, served by defendant no.2, upon the plaintiff-firm is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply of the plaintiff with regard to connection no.LSS.XV.

The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff- firm. It was held that the defendant-Nigam had absolutely no justification to club the arrears of another concern M/s Krishna Cold Storage along with the bill pertaining to the plaintiff-firm. In view of the aforesaid finding, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

C.M.No.8800-C of 2004 & : 2 :

R.S.A.No.3592 of 2004

The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. During the course of the first appeal, the defendants sought to lead additional evidence. The said application for additional evidence was dis-allowed by the learned first appellate court on the ground that there was no justification to permit the defendants to lead additional evidence when the said evidence was already available from the proceedings before the learned trial court.

On merits of the controversy, the learned first appellate court also came to the similar conclusions as were arrived at by the learned trial court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed.

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

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

Dismissed.

February 03, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.