This was an appeal against concurrent findings that the respondent-plaintiff proved appellant's default in paying professional fees. The court found no error in case appreciation and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law arises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO.699 OF 2008
Martand Padmanand Naik (Naik Wada)
.. Appellant
(Original Defendant )
Versus
Arun Damodar Patil
..Respondent
Mr.G.V.Wani, Advocate for appellant Mr.N.N.Desale, Advocate holding for Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for respondent (sole)
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 8th July 2010
PER COURT
( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
(vvr/699.08sa)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent-plaintiff proved the default by the appellant in paying professional fees.
Whether substantial question of law arises from the findings of Courts below.
Martand Padmanand Naik (Naik Wada)
Arun Damodar Patil
A.V. NIRGUDE
J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
