113 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1963 which runs as follows:. The parties were agreed before the learned Judge below that the claim in suit was governed by the provisions in art. The plaintiff filed the present suit on Apto recover the above amount paid as sales tax.Ĥ. Prior to the institution of the above appeal, between April 27 and July 1, 1963, the plaintiff deposited the aggregate sum of Rs. The revisional application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed in July 1963. An appeal filed by the plaintiff against the tax assessed was dismissed on November 12, 1963. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to deposit the amount of tax and penalty, but the defendants failed to do so. In connection with the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendants, the sales tax authorities issued an order dated February 28, 1963, calling upon the plaintiff to pay Rs.
There is no dispute between the parties that in respect of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants during the above period a contract of indemnity in the terms contained in the above letters existed.ģ. Similar letter of indemnity was executed by the defendants on January 3, 1958. In the letter dated October 11, 1957, the defendants stated: “In respect of the transaction under your invoice…dated Septemwe do hereby indemnify you against any amount of sales tax that may be levied by the authorities with or without any guarantee thereof, as the case may be, as and when charged”.
The relevant facts are as follows:- Between Octoand January 3, 1958, the plaintiff had sold and delivered to the defendants certain different goods and had also recovered the price thereof. Judge Kapadia of Page: 44the City Civil Court, Bombay, whereby the learned Judge tried the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and upon finding that the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation dismissed the same with costs.Ģ.
Applications: industry, glasses so on.K.K Desai, J.:- This is an appeal on behalf of the original plaintiff from the judgment and decree dated November 16, 1966, passed by Mr. Delivery time : 7- 30 days after confirmedĨ. Package : Ply wooden case or as requestħ. Size: Diameter : 4mm to 350mm, Length: 50mm to 6000mmĦ. Trace amounts of Carbon, Sulfur, Phosphorus and Nitrogen.Hardening Nitronic 60 Stainless Steel calls for the alloy to be cold worked. Common welding methods such as gas metal arc, gas tungsten arc and submerged arc can be used to weld Nitronic 60. Nitronic 60 can be formed using common forming techniques, and pre-heating is not required to weld Nitronic 60. Crevice corrosion and chloride pitting resistance is greater than Stainless Steel 316.Outstanding corrosion resistance Good high temperature properties for temperatures around 982 degrees Centigrade.Nitronic 60 Stainless Steel is an austenitic alloy, considered to have the best galling resistance of the entire range of Stainless Steels. In addition, the same cooling techniques used for Stainless Steel 316/316L and 317/317L can be utilized for Nitronic 50. Another advantage of using Nitronic 50 Stainless Steel is its outstanding corrosion resistance in harsh environments, especially in marine application As noted previously, Nitronic 50 is much stronger than Stainless Steel 316/316L and 317/317L however, the same fabrication equipment and procedures used for the Stainless Steel 300 grades can be utilized for Nitronic 50. Another characteristic of Nitronic 50 is that it does not become magnetic even when severely cold worked - unlike many other austenitic stainless steels. Additionally, Nitronic 50 Stainless Steel has good mechanical properties at elevated and sub-zero s. In fact, Nitronic 50 has about double the yield strength at room temperature compared to Stainless Steel 316/316L and 317/317L. Nitronic 50 Stainless Steel is an austenitic stainless steel with a blend of strength and corrosion resistance that is better than Stainless Steel 316, 316L, 317 and 317L.
0 kommentar(er)
