-1..
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGAi;(3F£’E~ A’
DATED THIS “mg 20″‘ DAY or ¥\¥OVEM8ER–2.a_G:’§38V 5] I
BE FORE
THE HONELE MR. JUST’IVC:E.’_SUBAF£ASH B. .»::€>zV
cxvn. REVISION PEUHOHIHHHG.2%95IIc2§’2ao6HH
Bawgag: I I I I
M/S SYSCON INSTRUMENTS PR1VATElLTD”” 2
#3<:z/*1, 'B' BLOCK
P.M.LAKSHMIAH'S mvozzr '
MRCER EXTENSION –
BANGALC)RE~5§{}_0—16″ ‘V ” .
REP. av ASST. GENERAL”?-4AN’ ::3ER’-.;;- :
(MARKETING) ~ ~~~~ ._ ...PETITIONER
(av SR1; N:a”:AR£iiA’j’a.4§uAL;–;§§::>x:oCATE – ABSENT)
AND: A I ‘ ” V’
THE JAHATHA-BAzAR” H.
(AUNIT KSQCF LTD.)
KEMF-‘»’E G{3WDA_”R.OF1D
BIHNGALQRE – 550 059.’
REE av. ITSHGENERAL MANAGER =-
..,RESPC3NDENT
(B?’»./._44é:*-2:1:V9.¥.;’f§,;s::r§GAHATHAN, ADVOCATE)
” THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 3.8 OF THE
{ wKAR..NATAKfi%.’SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT AGAINST THE EUDGMENT ANS
“-.DECREE’wDA”F{£Q: i5I1G.20G5 PASSED IN SC.f’~EO.2238/2003 ON THE FILE
DF_fFHE XIII ADDLSMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEYI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITEGN COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
THE coma? MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
9._B_9._.E_E
This matter is posted today from yesterd’aiyii,Vv’:.A.i.§$ici.ns:
appears for the petitioner today aisogii S1r:i’_;§.$;”Rahga.i2’a–ti@9§,..A;ii’
learned counsel appears for the {espondé~n_t.=–
2. This revision petition is fiIe<i':A"bv"tiie sfiiainvtiiffiaigainst
the judgment and decreé Viidatéd passed in
S.C.no.2238/2003 on-the fii<é"0f:'t5e" xjzri i5id§iiV'i"'$mai| Causes
Judge, 8anga|or_e,_" ' 1
3. Sv}i’t”is to the tune of
Rs.11,18Ex/Qwitii ,’~i’i’ie claim of the plaintiff is
that the Vc%uefend’anV_t iiasiisaiaéiiéd nurchase orders with the:
:pIai.ntiff,.’f{:rr gtspply o”f”‘c’e”s:*t~ain electronic instruments and the
s.Vé’i’d_’suVp’p’iy :_1::Iice dated 30.322002 for a sum sf
L 4__vi{s§1;si5;o<stex§, charging Rs.5,952/– towards KST at 4% and
unfit 'i1s.293/– at 5% of KST, in anticipation of the
sending the B-form at an early date. The
'ijdefendant paid the invoice amount of Rs.1,S5,£}50/'- in full,
.1 -..Cll3'¥:f£i§SnSE§€f.,
-5..
circumstances, the trial Court held that the evidence.’.”gla_¢’ed:_:”
by the plaintiff is insufficient to hold that the.Vd’a}fe.nd[ant’_ is’
liable to pay the difference at’ tax ,t’e__
against the invoice.
6. In View of the admitted the Eiilltljarnv-hunt is
inclusive of KST and Cass aettttjelte i;’e’tn’g.’t’vi§.§’requirement for
sending the D-form by the :dVefe.n:tlal2t’_tl_n3.e_rVthellerovisions of
Sections 5 to 8 S_:eV£e_a’l§.et”‘and in the event
of the defehd;.at:tV.Vs%-eV::tt§lr.tg the plaintiff has to
refund the [the trial Court has found
that the evtclleneep¥’artett~.A’eh”:retie.rd is not sufficient to claim
the difference.ofllétaathatitii aié:oé.t’ound that the Bill inciudes the
“If? Viéwhtlllef the above, I find :19 reasons to
tntesfere-i:t§itvhV’:the iii}-ctfiment and decree of the trial Cosurt.
Accuuerdi”n.gl.3V.rx, the petition faits and the same is hereby
Sd/-
Judge
_’ KM.