Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim (Died) And Ors. vs Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib And Anr. on 22 February, 1971

Mohd. Jamal vs Mohd. Islam on 30 November, 2013

3. The defendants filed a joint written statement. Preliminary objections were taken. It was averred that there was no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and the suit was bad for non­joinder. It was also averred that the suit was not maintainable in the present form since the deceased Mst. Haseena had been a statutory tenant with respect to the suit property and before her death she had adopted a son namely Mohd. Arbaz who was already residing with her at the time of her death and the tenancy qua the suit premises was inherited by the son of the deceased tenant. The notice dated 18.03.2002 was illegal and could only be considered to be a letter of attornment. The property was situated in the Slum Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 5/21 area and the permission U/s 19 of the Slum Act was required to be filed. The defendants had no concern with the property in the suit rather the son of deceased Mst. Haseena was adopted from the brother of defendant no. 1 and the minor child was only being sheltered by defendant no. 1. The defendants also averred that the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The site plan was disputed. It was averred that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendants.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nortrans Marine Services (P) Ltd vs Cargo Care International on 10 November, 2020

In Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim v. Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib 2 a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was party, the question arose whether the defence regarding the non-registration of a firm and the invalidity of the decree passed in a suit relating to such a firm can be permitted to be raised in a separate suit. One a consideration of some of the decisions referred to earlier, the Division Bench held that the defence of non-registration of a firm is a plea that has to be raised in the suit itself and if it had not been so raised, it could not be permitted to be raised for the first time and more so it R.F.A Nos.672 & 673/2004 -59- cannot be permitted to be raised in a separate suit. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and the omission on the part of the appellants to raise a specific Plea in that regard we are of the opinion that it will not be open to the appellants at this stage to urge that the suit in Original Suit No. 671 of 1978, Sub-Court, Madura, is not maintainable by reason of section 69 of the Partnership Act. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in Appeal Suit No. 529 of 1982."
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S V Bhatt - Full Document

Wren Bennett And Co. India Ltd. vs Dr. C.P. Gupta And Ors. on 21 February, 1992

In K.A. Munavar Hussain Sahip and Anr. v. E.R. Narayanan and Ors. , another division Bench of this Court following the principles laid down in Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim (died) v. Kokka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib 84 L. W. 654 held that the plea based on Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act not raised in the written statement, cannot be allowed to be raised at a later stage. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the appellate authority without pleadings as to the maintainability of the petition for fixation of fair rent in view of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, the contention of the respondent as to the maintainability of the petition for fixation of fair rent at a later stage before the appellate authority and before this Court in revision is not sustainable, (b) The facts of the present case go to show that the petition for fixation of fair rent is not filed in the firm name, but it is filed by the individual partners Dr. Gupta and Mrs. Kasthuri Gupta describing themselves as partners of M/s. Gupta & Co. It is admitted before me that the said firm is not a registered firm.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kwality Panel Products vs Picadely Hotel on 14 May, 2013

7. The Hon'ble Madras High Court also dealt with subject of maintainability of suit viz­a­viz Section 69 of the Partnership Act, when no defence regarding non maintainability of suit in this respect is raised. It was further held in Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim (died) & Ors. Vs. Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahbi & Anr. AIR 1972 Madras 96. (V.59 C 26) (1) that, "under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the plaint shall contain the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction. Under order 6 rule 6 of CPC any condition precedent, the performance or occurrence of which is intended to be contested, shall be distinctly specified in his pleading by the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be. Under order 8 rule 2 of CPC, the defendant must by his pleading raise all the matters which show the suit not to be maintainable and all such grounds of defences, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by 8 CS No. 938/12 surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as for instance fraud limitation etc. The maintainability of the suit is one of the grounds that will have to be specifically pleaded under order 8 rule 2 of CPC. The defendants in that suit had not raised that plea. The learned author Mulla in his book on Civil P.C., 13th Edition page no. 769 states that a question of fact, which had been put forward in the written statement, cannot be allowed to be raised later, for example, a plea that a partnership was not registered.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rathinam vs State By on 10 April, 1985

The vehement objection of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the objection of the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/R2 is found without any basis considering the civil nature of the dispute involved. It need not be under the criminal act. It is found that the Court has to ensure peaceful amicable settlement of dispute and the civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal case as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Buhari Trading Co. vs Star Metal Co. on 4 March, 1982

6. The decision in Jalal Mohd. v. Kakka Mohd., is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, a suit was filed by an unregistered firm against another firm in which there was a common partner. In the earlier suit, no plea was raised under S. 69 of the Partnership Act. After the decree was made a fresh suit was filed by the common partner for a declaration that the decree obtained in the earlier suit was void as far as he was concerned on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by fraud and suppression of the unregistered partnership agreement between the defendants. This court held that the earlier decree was not void and could not be set aside on two main grounds. Firstly, in the earlier suit, the plaintiff who was a defendant there, did not raise the plea that the suit was barred and, therefore, he was estopped from raising that plea in a separate suit. Secondly, the decree passed in a suit instituted by an unregistered firm is not a nullity and the disability created by S. 69 of the Partnership Act is with regard to the power of the courts to pass a decree. It may also he mentioned that the earlier suit was filed as a proprietary concern and not as a partnership. The ratio of that judgment is therefore not in any way against the view expressed in all these judgments which we have noted above. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the learned Judge that the suit is not barred by the dismissal of C.S. 548 of 1981.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

N.A. Munavar Hussain Sahib And Anr. vs E.R. Narayanan And Ors. on 17 June, 1983

In Jalal Mohammad Ibrahim v. Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib , a Division, Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, the question arose whether the defence regarding the non-registration of a firm and the invalidity of the decree passed in a suit relating to such a firm can be permitted to be raised in a separate suit. On a consideration of some of the decisions referred to earlier, the Division Bench held that the defence of non-registration of a firm is a plea that has to be raised in the suit itself and if it had not been so raised, it could not be permitted to be raised for the first time and more so it cannot be permitted to be raised in a separate suit. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and the omission on the part of the appellants to raise a specific plea in that regard, we are of the opinion that it will not be open to the appellants at this stage to urge that the suit in 0. S. No. 6VI of 1978, Sub-Court. Maduraii is not maintainable by reason of S. 69 of the Partnershi13 A et. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this . contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in A. S. No. 529 of 1982.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next