Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Ramkrishna Trimbak Nadkarni vs Narayan Shivrao Aras on 20 August, 1915

Bal Rajaram Padval vs Maneklal Mansukhbhai on 30 July, 1931

In Ramkrishna Trimbak v. Narayan it was held that the sons could, not escape liability for payment of the debts of their father contracted in a fishing trade which was started by the father in contravention of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, and the decision in Durbar Khachar's case was held to amount to this that the civil penalty imposed by way of damages upon a father for a civil wrong committed by him does not give rise to the moral obligation of the son to discharge his debt, and that immorality or impropriety as between the father and the person with whom he traded is the crucial test in the case.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Madhusudan Pandurang Samant vs Bhagwan Atmaram on 30 November, 1928

In these circumstances, in view of the rulings in Sheo Shanhar Ram v. Jaddo Kunwar and Ramkrishna v. Vinayak Narayan. I am of opinion that the plaintiffs must be held to have been represented by their father Pandurang in the previous litigation and, therefore, the matter 1b res judicata and cannot be re-opened. I am of this opinion apart from Section 11, Explanation 6, of the Civil Procedure Code, the applicability of which is perhaps doubtful. This is sufficient for the disposal of the appeal, but as the other question, namely, the maintainability of the suit has been argued at some length I will deal briefly with that also.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Madhgouda Babaji Patil vs Halappa Balappa Patil on 21 August, 1933

In Ramkrishna v. Vinayak Narayan (1910) I.L.R. 34 Bom. 354 : s.c. 12 Bom. L.R. 219,the facts were as follows: A Hindu family living jointly consisted of S, his son M, and his two grandsons S1 and R (both minors) by his predeceased son. S mortgaged a house for purposes allowed by Hindu law. The deed of mortgage was signed S, M, and by S1 represented by his mother. The mortgagee sued the executing parties and obtained a decree. The house was sold in execution and was purchased by the plaintiff. In the meantime S had died and plaintiff sued M, S1 and R for possession of the house. R claimed to exempt from the sale his share in the house on the ground that he was not a party to the suit and was not bound by the decree. It was held that R was represented by the adult members who were the managing members.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next