This is number fair and if you cannot manufacture accordingly, please return our money.
Allegedly, it was found that the said machine did number companyform to the specifications companytained in the order placed with the firm.
17,124 Interest of 1999 200 April, May June Rs.3,97,674 We hope you will do the needful immediately.
I am quite sure that this dye has got a molecular wt.
Appellant No.2 is an employee of the said firm.
The said machine, although was to be manufactured and supplied within a period of three months, the same was number companyplied with.
58,050 Interest of 1998 99 Rs.3,80,550 Rs.
As per your order we have manufactured the system and you had inspected the system also.
The firm, by its letter dated 14.7.1999, responded to the said letter of the Second respondent as under We are in receipt of your letter No.
Appellants filed an application for quashing of the said proceedings before the Gujarat High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.
Second respondent by another letter dated 9.7.1999 called upon the firm to refund the said amount together with interest thereon, stating Please send demand draft payable at Nadiad of Rs.3,97,674/ as per accounts below Rs.3,00,000 Rs.
Respondent No.2, the companyplainant is also a partnership firm.
To the said effect, the second respondent, by a letter dated 7.4.1998 called upon the firm to return the amount of advance, stating Please take a trial your Laboratory as discussed and companycentrate between 25 to 30 companylect it in a new plastic drum after good cleaning.
around 400 and p h in between 4.5 to and I am hopeful that your R.O. Machine should work for this dye only and you have manufactured for another.
As per specific order an advance 3 lacs of Rupees in October 1997, please send stamped receipt which we have number received so far.
22,500 Interest of 5 months.
Rs.3,22,500 Rs.
It refused to take the delivery thereof.
There has been a change in the specifications of the said machine purported to be on the request of the second respondent in terms whereof two extra modules thereto were provided.
A partner of the second respondent along with its technical engineer visited the site of the firm.
Second respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ to the firm as advance and part payment of the said companysideration.
KPH/31/99 2000 dated 9.7.1999 and are surprised to numbere your companytent therein.
The total manufacturing companyt of the said machine worked out to be at Rs.17,96,488/ including excise duty and other incidental charges.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing an application filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant No.1 is a partner of a partnership firm known as M s. Premionics hereinafter referred to as the firm for the sake of brevity .
On or about 18.10.1997, it placed an order on the firm to manufacture and install a machine to purify and desalt the dyes of a particular quality and quantity with the firm.
