The said firm entered into a companytract for supply of paddy husk with the appellant.
The learned Trial Judge, inter alia, framed the following issue Do defendants prove that suit is also hit by Section 22 of Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act as companytended in Para 7 of W.S. Preliminary issue?
One of the companytentions raised by the appellant in the said suit was that as the appellant company has become a sick industry within the meaning of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 for short, the Act and a reference having been made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR in terms of the provisions of the Act, the suit was number maintainable.
Inter alia, on the premise that appellant herein, despite supply of the agreed quantity of paddy husk, failed and or neglected to pay the price therefor, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,61,696/ in the Court of Civil Judge, Hangal.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.982 of 2007 whereby and whereunder judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, decreeing the suit being OS No.728 of 2002 filed by the respondent was affirmed.
A partnership firm known as M s. Kashmiri Rice Industries has its place of business at Hangal.
