TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUDGMENT:- L.N. MITTAL J.-CM No. 7709-C of 2011: Heard. For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 128 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main case: Defendants have filed this second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff against defendants/respondents. De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1991 on defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the notice period of six months lapsed on June 26, 1992 and thereafter the plaintiff is not liable as surety of defendant No. 4 to pay the amount due from defendant No. 4. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit whereas defendant No. 4 was proceeded against ex parte. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 denied having received alleged notice dated December 26, 1991 from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....barred by section 62 of the Act. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are meritless. As regards service of notice on defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on December 26, 1991, by the plaintiff, evidence of the plaintiff in this regard practically stands unrebutted. Contesting defendants have, of course, examined Narender Kaushik, Excise and Taxation Officer as DW-1. However, he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the aforesaid circumstances, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below regarding service of the aforesaid notice by plaintiff on contesting defendants, is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. Consequently there is no ground to interfere with the said finding....