State Of Raj And Ors vs Smt Sanotsh Dhinwa on 3 July, 2017
AIR 1955 SC 817; Badri Prasad and Ors. v. Nagarmal
and Ors.: AIR 1959 SC 559; and Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (1.55 seconds)A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
He also referred to Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal, [1959] 1 Supp.
Lav Kumar Agrawal vs . Sunita Chhabra on 30 November, 2019
Joining issue on this question learned
senior counsel, Shri Rao, for the
appellant invited our attention to a
decision of this Court in the case of
Badri Prasad and Others v. Seth
Nagarmal (1959) Supp (1) SCR 769:
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Dead) By Lrs vs Naresh Chandra . on 8 December, 2021
On the contrary the appellant joined issues
on merits by seeking permission to cross-examine the
plaintiff on merits of the case on grounds as pleaded
7
CA No. 7554/2021 (@ SLP(C)No. 3432/ 2017)
under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. When the decree
was passed against the appellant, even while
challenging the said decree in appeal no such ground
was taken in the memo of appeal, nor was it argued
before the first appellate court. Under these
circumstances, the High Court rightly held that the
contention, regarding the suit being premature as
filed before expiry of six months from the date of
the notice, must be treated to have been waived by
the appellant. Joining issue on this question learned
Senior Counsel, Shri Rao, for the appellant, invited
our attention to a decision of this Court in the case
of Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal [AIR 1959 SC 559 : 1959
Supp (1) SCR 769] . In that case a suit filed by an
unregistered company was found to be hit by the
provisions of Section 4 sub-section (2) of the Rewa
State Companies Act, 1935. The said contention was
permitted to be taken for the first time during
averments in appeal before this Court. It was held
that as this contention went to the root of the
maintainability of the suit it could be agitated as a
pure question of law. We fail to appreciate how that
decision can be of any avail to the appellant in the
present case.
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Dead) By Lrs vs Naresh Chandra . on 8 December, 2021
On the contrary the appellant joined issues
on merits by seeking permission to cross-examine the
plaintiff on merits of the case on grounds as pleaded
7
CA No. 7554/2021 (@ SLP(C)No. 3432/ 2017)
under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. When the decree
was passed against the appellant, even while
challenging the said decree in appeal no such ground
was taken in the memo of appeal, nor was it argued
before the first appellate court. Under these
circumstances, the High Court rightly held that the
contention, regarding the suit being premature as
filed before expiry of six months from the date of
the notice, must be treated to have been waived by
the appellant. Joining issue on this question learned
Senior Counsel, Shri Rao, for the appellant, invited
our attention to a decision of this Court in the case
of Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal [AIR 1959 SC 559 : 1959
Supp (1) SCR 769] . In that case a suit filed by an
unregistered company was found to be hit by the
provisions of Section 4 sub-section (2) of the Rewa
State Companies Act, 1935. The said contention was
permitted to be taken for the first time during
averments in appeal before this Court. It was held
that as this contention went to the root of the
maintainability of the suit it could be agitated as a
pure question of law. We fail to appreciate how that
decision can be of any avail to the appellant in the
present case.
Keska Rajabhitha Primary Agricultural ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2023
In support of his contention that a pure question
of law in the circumstances can be taken for the first
time in this Court he relied on the decisions of this
Court in Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand
Ramchand Kothari [1950 SCC 766], Raja Sri Sailendra
Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa [AIR 1956 SC
346] , Seth Badri Prasad v. Seth Nagarmal [AIR 1959 SC
559], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Swarup [(1974) 1
SCC 42] and T.G. Appanda Mudaliar v. State of
Madras [(1976) 4 SCC 821] . As the point raised is a
pure question of law not involving any investigation of
the facts, we permitted the learned counsel to raise the
question.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai And Sons on 14 January, 1986
App 134 at 155 (Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Moinuddin); (1901) 2 KB 833 (Alder-son v. Palliser) and (Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal)].
Bapulal vs Laxmi Bharat Trading Co. And Ors. on 9 March, 1965
This view seems to us to have received the approval of the Privy Council in Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand, AIR 1930 PC: 300 and of our own Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal, AIR 1959 SC 559.
Sushil Kumar And Party And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 1 April, 1985
In the above case when cloth control came into force in Reewa State the cloth dealers of Budhar, a town in that State, formed themselves into an association to collect the quota of cloth to be alloted to them and sell it on profit wholsale, and retail. The association at Budhar consisted of 25 members, who made contributions to the initial capital of the association, which was Rs. 1,00,000/-. No formal article of association was written, nor was it registered. The association functioned through a President and a pioneer worker; they kept accounts and distributed the profits. In the above circumstances it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the suit being for accounts of an illegal association, which was in existence at the relevant period for which accounts were asked, the plaintiff association was an illegal body.
Manishbhai Bharatbhai Shah vs The State Of Gujarat And 4 Ors. on 28 February, 2007
Shri. Patel has also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Badri Prasad and Ors. v. Nagarmal and Ors. in support of his submission that the court can not assist the plaintiff and or complainant so as to facilitate his furthering any prohibited and or illegal claim. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case clearly held that where an association of more than 20 persons was formed in contravention of Section 11(2) of the Companies Act and a claim was made by some members of such illegal association against another member on the footing that the association should be treated as legal in order to give rise to a liability to render accounts in respect of transactions of the association, such a claim was clearly untenable, and it was held that where a plaintiff comes to the court on claiming breach of conditions of illegal partnership contract then the only course for the courts to pursue is to say that he is not entitled to any relief on the allegations made as the court can not adjudicate in respect of contracts which the law declares to be illegal.