present appeal.
According to the appellant, it is the advance payment CMRL made
on their behalf to the Proprietary Concern, which was encashed
even though ... project between CMRL and the appellant was
terminated. On the other hand, the respondent has attempted to
urge that there was no privity of contract
light fittings, since
the appellant had been engaged for a project by
CMRL.
47.2. CMRL, on the appellant's behalf, paid ... proprietary concern as an advance
on its order with the appellant.
47.3. CMRL cancelled its project with the appellant.
47.4. The proprietary concern encashed
therein).
The appellant had got the contract from Chennai Metro Rail Corporation
(CMRL) and for completing the said work he has placed an order with ... respondent. On behalf of the appellant, CMRL had paid a sum of Rs. 50
lakhs to the Respondent as an advance for fulfilling the supply
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited with
Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL). The Order was placed to the Corporate
Debtor on the request of Appellant, advance payment ... Lakhs was
made by Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to the Corporate Debtor.
Subsequently, the contract was cancelled between the Appellant and the
Chennai Metro
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited with
Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL). The Order was placed to the Corporate
Debtor on the request of Appellant, advance payment ... Lakhs was
made by Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to the Corporate Debtor.
Subsequently, the contract was cancelled between the Appellant and the
Chennai Metro
observed as
under:
60. ``In the present case, CMRL issued the cheque of Rs 50,00,000
to the Proprietary Concern on 7 November ... order
of the appellant. It was only on 2 January 2014 that CMRL
terminated its project with the appellant, and it was after this that
observed as
under:
60. ``In the present case, CMRL issued the cheque of Rs 50,00,000
to the Proprietary Concern on 7 November ... order
of the appellant. It was only on 2 January 2014 that CMRL
terminated its project with the appellant, and it was after this that
present appeal.
According to the appellant, it is the advance payment CMRL
made on their behalf to the proprietary concern, which was
encashed even though ... project between CMRL and the
appellant was terminated. On the other hand, the respondent
has attempted to urge that there was no privity of contract
present
appeal. According to the Appellant, it is the advance
payment CMRL made on their behalf to the Proprietary
Concern, which was encashed even though ... project
between CMRL and the Appellant was terminated. On the
other hand, the Respondent has attempted to urge that
there was no privity of contract
present
appeal. According to the Appellant, it is the advance
payment CMRL made on their behalf to the Proprietary
Concern, which was encashed even though ... project
between CMRL and the Appellant was terminated. On the
other hand, the Respondent has attempted to urge that
there was no privity of contract
