Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Gopala Chetty vs Vijayaraghavachariar on 9 March, 1922

A.R.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar And Anr. vs P.N.M.M. Palaniappa Chettiar And Ors. on 2 September, 1947

811 and Debesh Chandra Mukerjee v. Benoy Krishna Banerjee (1939) 43 Gal.W.N. 1214 though in the latter case Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar (1922) 43 M.L.J. 305 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 378 (P.C.) was not referred to. The learned Judges there laid down the general rule that a separate claim for contribution would not ordinarily lie in the absence of a prayer for general accounting ; but they seemed to consider that a suit for contribution might lie if no inequity would result from it ; e.g., if the accounts were before the Court and it appeared from them that the plaintiff was justly entitled to contribution towards the liability that he had met.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chockalingam Chettiar vs Meyappa Chettiar And Ors. on 28 January, 1938

45. The difference of opinion relates really to two points, namely, (1) the scope and effect of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar (1922) 43 M.L.J. 305 : L.R. 49 I.A. 181 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 378 (P.C.), and (2) the applicability of the law of partnership to the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit. As regards the first point it was held by Madhavan Nair, J., that it follows from the Privy Council decision that the plaintiffs' father, if he were alive, could not enforce the present claim to contribution against the defendants, whereas the other learned Judge was of opinion that the Privy Council decision did not go to this length and did not lead to this conclusion. On the other point, Madhavan Nair, J., held that though the plaintiffs were not partners themselves, nevertheless they cannot be treated as complete strangers to the partnership and the suit by them for contribution cannot be regarded as being devoid of all connection with the nature of the liability that is sought to be enforced which is essentially a partnership liability. The other learned Judge was of the contrary opinion and held that the ordinary law of partnership had nothing to do with the right claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit and that there was no reason for withholding the equitable remedy of contribution from them.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bhuban Mohan Das vs Surendra Mohan Das on 26 February, 1951

34. The only remedy of a co-patnr. is an account & until such an account is taken it cannot be said whether the co-patnr. has any interest at all in the asset or money. As pointed out in the case of Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar, (1922-1 A. C. 488: A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 115), decided by their Lordships of the P. C., even after dissolution a co-patnr. has no right to sue for his share of an asset. It appears to me that if a co-patnr. has no right to sue to recover his share it cannot possibly be said that his co-patnr. is holding that share in trust for him. If the patnr. holds partnership property in a fiduciary capacity he would be holding it in trust for his co-patnrs. & his co-patnrs. could sue. But it has been laid down beyond all question that the co-patnrs. cannot sue & that their only remedy is an account & to recover only what is ultimately found due on taking the account. It appears to me that in those circumstances it cannot be said that a patnr. who receives or holds property of a partnership is entrusted with the property or dominion over it, & that being so it appears to me that the answer to question 1 must be in the negative.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Vanguard Security And Fire Services (P) ... vs M/S National Building Construction ... on 25 April, 2018

He contends that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. It is true, as he points out, that a claim to recover a sum of money due from one of the partners must form part of the inquiry in the action for winding up the partnership and no suit will lie after a suit for an account is barred by limitation. Gopala RFA 633/2016 Page 16 of 22 Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 115. But the respondent contends that the judgment (as construed by the order of 26th October 1914, Exhibit G) creates fresh rights in the place of the older rights and this suit is an action on the judgment. This is obvious, and, provided there is no obstacle in India to a suit on a judgment, when there is no other remedy to enforce the right, the contention ought to prevail.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Ganga Choudhary And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2019

34. The only remedy of a co-partner is an account & until such an account is taken it cannot be said whether the co-partner has any interest at all in the asset or money. As pointed out in the case of Gopala Chetty versus Vijayaraghavachariar, (1922-1 A. C. 488: A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 115), decided by their Lordships of the P. C., even after dissolution a co-partner has no right to sue for his share of an asset. It appears to me that if a co-partner has no right to sue to recover his share it cannot possibly be said that his co-partner is holding that share in trust for him. If the partner holds partnership property in a fiduciary capacity he would be holding it in trust for his co-partners. & his co-partners could sue.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B Kumar - Full Document

Rajendra Agrawal vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2019

34. The only remedy of a co-partner is an account & until such an account is taken it cannot be said whether the co-partner has any interest at all in the asset or money. As pointed out in the case of Gopala Chetty versus Vijayaraghavachariar, (1922-1 A. C. 488: A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 115), decided by their Lordships of the P. C., even after dissolution a co-partner has no right to sue for his share of an asset. It appears to me that if a co-partner has no right to sue to recover his share it cannot possibly be said that his co-partner is holding that share in trust for him. If the partner holds partnership property in a fiduciary capacity he would be holding it in trust for his co-partners. & his co-partners could sue.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B Kumar - Full Document

Basantlal Jalan vs Chiranjilal Sarawgi And Ors. on 20 February, 1967

16. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Gopa Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar, AIR 1922 PC 115, in support of the proposition that the suit having been filed on the 15th June, 1954, and dissolution having been pleaded, as stated above, after the supply dated the 6th April, 1949, must be held to be barred by limitation. In that case, their Lordships observed as follows: --
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Govula Ramakistiah vs Yerram Yellappa on 9 March, 1959

19. It is further contended that even if it is held that the document sircath is executed by the defendant appellant and is for consideration, the plaintiff-respondent cannot get a decree on the document unless he filed a suit for general accounts. Reliance is placed upon the case of Bishen Narain v. Swaroop Narain, AIR 1938 Lab 43, Sohum Ram Mukhi Lal Chand v. Sewa Ram, AIR 1938 Lah 259, Hamaswami Nathan v. Muthiah Chetty AIR 1925 Mad 279, A.R.M.M. Meyyanpa Chettiar v. P. N. M. M. Planiappa Chetliar, AIR 1949 Mad 109 (21 and Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar, ILR 45 Mad 378; (AIR 1922 P.C. 115). We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the. appellant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next