Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Firm Mukand Lal Veer Kumar & Anr vs Sri Purushottam Singh & Ors on 31 January, 1968

P.B. Lakshmana Sah And Bros. ... vs J.N. Sivaraj Chettiar And Ors. on 27 July, 1993

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Firm Mukund Lal v. Purushottam Singh : (1968) 2 S.C.J. 639 : (1968) 2 S.C.A. 461, declined to accept the act of one of the partners as an act on behalf of the partners of the firm and thus on behalf of the firm for the reason that the property of which Mukand Lai was alleged to have made a gift to Veer Kumar was not partnership property and there was no collective act of insolvency alleged on behalf of all the partners of the firm.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Lal And Etc. vs The State And Ors. on 21 March, 1989

No. 7569-M of 1988 (Amar Lal and Anr. v. State and Ors.) the complaint, as well as, subsequent proceedings taken thereon, against both the petitioners, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, are directed to be quashed, whereas, the said court would proceed with and dispose of the case, according to law, as far as Sarvshri R.P. Gupta and V. K. Pehwa, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, are concerned. This petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti vs Financial Commissioner And Ors. [Along ... on 15 June, 2007

(i) In the post-consolidation phase, only the bhumidars and transferees were entitled to be allotted land. While Respondent No. 6 could have validly made a claim for allotment of land, Respondent No. 4 Trust could not have so claimed since the gift deeds under which it claimed title to certain lands were not in existence. He relied upon the judgment in Firm Mukund Lal v. Purushottam Singh Gomtibai v. Mattulal to contend that the registration of the gift deed was essential and in its absence no right accrued to Respondent No. 4 Trust.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti vs Financial Commissioner And Ors. [Along ... on 15 June, 2007

(i) In the post-consolidation phase, only the bhumidars and transferees were entitled to be allotted land. While Respondent No. 6 could have validly made a claim for allotment of land, Respondent No. 4 Trust could not have so claimed since the gift deeds under which it claimed title to certain lands were not in existence. He relied upon the judgment in Firm Mukund Lal v. Purushottam Singh and Gomtibai v. Mattulal contend that the registration of the gift deed was essential and in its absence no right accrued to Respondent No. 4 Trust.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rana Narendrasinhji Jerawarsinhji And ... vs Dipchand Jaterbhai And Co. And Ors. on 19 January, 1988

In the case of Firm Mukund Lal Veerkumar v. Purushottam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1182, it has been held that an order of adjudication under the Act against the firm in the firm's name can be made, if proper conditions are satisfied and in order to support the adjudication against the firm, there must be proof that each of the partners has committed some act of insolvency. However, if a joint act of insolvency is relied upon. it must be shown to be the act of each partner. It has been further held that if there A as an act of insolvency by an agent of the firm which was such as must necessarily be imputed to the firm, the order for adjudication can also be made against the firm and the question whether an act of insolvency of one or more partners can be regarded as an act of all the partners is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next