M/S Karnataka Crushers Engineers And ... vs M/S Atlanta Infrastructures Ltd on 26 February, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Karnataka Crushers Engineers And ... vs M/S Atlanta Infrastructures Ltd on 26 February, 2009

Bench: N.Ananda

..   th£é"CE-.:{_f¢.<;ff}§i:1nts I and L? are liabie to pay

_  ' Zak}: seventy eight thousand six
   and eight paisa shiny zmiy} towards

A  }?; .4.§izz No,-4 dated 222.200? which :3 the
 'A " ﬁﬁﬁi biii} apart fmm the amsmnt covered
 under i?.A_B'iiIs ?, 2 and 3 thus the

{rupees am»: Zakh seventy eight fhausartd 
hundred and eight pwlsa thiriy two A. 'A
an 222.2002 and in rated the defenéiéiiztﬁiw?   H
and 2 are due is the pia.imf.tﬁ'   éf  2 
Rs. 3' an 85', 59 :3 35 pg (mpgzes;_-...§z;a;5e;£ 4...'zaky£S»%,{ «  T
eighty five Ihousanci ﬁne h1§i'ae;*ifed ant?-".%i3.£ﬁeiyv   '
seven patiscz thirty V-91115;)   
deducfions (7) dgduct 3  'ativqzézce
paid against  g1£§:;rcgr;£ée3_'Lia:;{?zi<;h sum the
defendcmﬁs 7  w'itI?:'  without

any re(a$*:2§f;{§:bZe::A__ca§J:':§e  Vthough the

work:   was completed

V   _' para 7(1)) to be
igicﬁrpératég b

'L"F?£IraV V'f{b)~, i*.2?":,s3ﬂ' piaintzﬁ' further submits

:&;Li'Qih§2*«1;:zaiz1n33* a sum of Rs' 2, ?'8,508..'3:'2 ps.

defendants ? and 2? are Ziable in pay it} the
piainaﬁa sum cf Rs. 2 ?;85,59?36 ps' {eleven
Zaklzs eighty ﬁve thausand ﬁve hundred and
ninety seven ;_'.7t.'.E'€.S£2 thirty six: only) after giving

TU; L...  c.-é3£_.,

 



further be pieaseci ta pass a 

and decree against the defendants I     A
pay tax the plaintiﬁ' a sum q_f..Rs.' I ?,_-8.5',     

(rupees eleven iakhs  A ;  
hundred and ninety seven" tam}  
only) as on 22.2.2O3--., fogeth.¢Vér-w.. k
interest at the  of V24é;;*pe:.FAann::mA..til1fﬂw
reazszmion 0f the gauge  ﬁ'z«é:et:"the ends of

  ; _ ,  .

3. had_"ri:isfni§§ﬁ§%:d the applir:at1'rm

far amenci   
'f'*he'--  for relief of permanent

inj21rt{:t:i0uﬁ.._'. A   amendment. plaintiff

 '_ waiits  convé'ﬁ,Vt}}e. suit. far recovery of money. The

 %.aV;,x%,s1~;1iic-,a:&:iaxj:«.%% f'o:+ amendment ﬁled on 22.02.2001, is

fxérréd vb:;}"--'f(§_ri€r-ﬁg

" 4.tf«:_11..?a've h<=:a*m1 tearned counsel for petittinner anti

'~ " leéfned cm ms:-:1 for respondent.

5. The suit is ﬁled for permanent injunction to restrain defendant from enr-ashing bank guarantee which was 6-:xec11ted by plaintiff for disch.-arainsz certain !\}.C3§\--w EL V» 54/» v-

8. ha the (iacision reported in MR it is; held, the :3pplic:ai7i(1n for anlﬁndtnetﬁft:-..¢i£é:i'><1r;s;fe asrc=:t*nW:nt.3 xvhicil are aE"r€ady fbilngi ' %_I1*__th e' -_p'iaf§tj'f js pernxiﬁsihie. '?h<=:"ref0z'€:, w.E":at }'1§}'{°:._ Eat-"ten 1h <'.~:E{i in '}';h"i's:

tiecision is not" appiicfable "£*v.':¥"1c=,. '§:'r"1V%<=: on hand. ' I V

9. For 'the af0resfa.f.€§§i:--..1¥%§xE§11é5§;"V.h'§.'ﬂ§:3"V"nat find («my gmunds tg) ""'i"i;I1p11gTT€d 0Td53T'-

 V     /-

cmjg »

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court