U.V. Shenoy Vs. Karnataka Engineering Products Co. (P.) Ltd. and anr.

.....in question against petitioner is not quasi-criminal in nature. standard of proof required is not beyond reasonable doubt. matter has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. -- section 168(2): election to panchayat adjudication of disputes arising between parties parties consenting for recording their statements on oath before state election commissioner held, state election commissioner has got jurisdiction to record statements on oath. though the commissioner is required to adjudicate disputes between parties judiciously, he cannot be termed as court for purpose of section 168 (2) of the act. there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice or mandatory requirement of law under section 168(2). plea that state election commissioner has no power to administer oath and record evidence, inasmuch as said power is not conferred expressly on him by act is not tenable. - in that circumstance of a fresh demand was made and statutory notice issued in spite of which the 1st respondent-company and the directors failed and neglected to pay the sums demanded. oral evidence of the petitioner as well as the managing director of the 1st respondent-company in respect of their respective stands was also record by me. on carefully going throat the evidence i am satisfied that the 1st respondent company has a tenable defence for the claim made by the petitioner. i any event, i am satisfied, prima facie, that it is a matter which more can appropriately be agitated in a properly framed suit in a civil court than be agitated in this summary proceeding as to the liability of the respondents......cafe that the 1st respondent-company owes a sum of rs. 33,490.55 in respect of certain items of goods supplied by him to the company. it is unnecessary to set out in detail the claim. it is further alleged that some of the amounts due had in fact been paid by cheques which on presentation to the syndicate bank gandhinagar branch, came to be dishonoured. in that circumstance of a fresh demand was made and statutory notice issued in spite of which the 1st respondent-company and the directors failed and neglected to pay the sums demanded. therefore, the petition. 3. the petition has been resisted on the ground the two sums are due by the company or its directors to the petitioner inasmuch as the various items of goods supplies were returned as they were of substandard quality that what was contorted for. it is further alleged by the managing doctor of the company that on account of the sub-standard quality of goods supplied by the petitioner, his contract to supply link panels to the indian telephone industries was cancelled and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to his prayer. 4. the parties were permitted to file documents and mark the same by consent. oral evidence of the petitioner as well as the managing director of the 1st respondent-company in respect of their respective stands was also record by me. on carefully going throat the evidence i am satisfied that the 1st respondent company has a tenable defence for the claim made by the petitioner. to decide the question as to what sums would be due in the ultimate analyses is not possible in this summary proceeding no doubt, the fact of the issuance of the cheques and the same being dishonoured has been established. that however has been explained by the 2nd respondent. i any event, i am satisfied, prima facie, that it is a matter which more can appropriately be agitated in a properly framed suit in a civil court than be agitated in this summary proceeding as to the liability of the respondents. 5......