Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Gajanand vs Sardarmal And Anr. on 23 December, 1960

Devilal vs Himat Ram And Ors. on 3 October, 1971

the principle laid down in Gajanand's case would, in my opinion, have full application even when the erstwhile partners are being sued. The case may not be literally covered by Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, but regard being had to the principle contained therein, there should be no difficulty in holding that the surviving partners even after dissolution represent the interest of the whole partnership including that of the deceased partners so far as it may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the partnership and to complete the transactions unfinished at the time of dissolution. Looked at from this angle. I am inclined to hold that the interest of the deceased Himmat Ram is sufficiently represented by the surviving partners who are on the record as respondents.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Madhavji Khatau Katira And Anr. vs Trikamdas Narandas Tanna on 28 June, 1968

22, The learned Advocate Mr. Shelat invited my attention to a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gajanand v. Sardarmal, AIR 1961 Raj 223 and urged that the present appeal could be proceeded with further. It was a case where the suit was not instituted in the name of the firm but in the name of individual partners, the firm being at the time a foreign firm. After the institution one of the plaintiffs died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. A question arose as to what has to be considered under Order 22, Rule 2. What bas to be considered is whether the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs alone, i. e. whether the surviving plaintiffs were competent to carry on the suit in the absence of the deceased plaintiff without joining the legal representatives of the deceased as plaintiffs or defendants or whether the remaining plaintiffs were entitled to represent the deceased plaintiff for purpose of prosecuting the suit. The suit was a suit to recover the debt due, to the firm. It was, therefore, observed:
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shambhu Dayal vs Chunnilal Devkinandan And Ors. on 20 February, 1979

In Gajanand v. Sardarmal, AIR 1961 Raj 223, a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Bhandari, J. (as his Lordship then was) held that the provisions of Order XXX are enabling provisions and they do not make it compulsory for the partners to sue' in the name of the firm. This Court further held that if a suit is not filed in the form provided in the name of the firm, it can be brought in the name of all the partners of the firm and if one of the partners dies during the pen-dency of the suit, the remaining partners can continue the suit and there is no necessity of the legal representatives of the deceased partner to be brought on record. This Court deduced this conclusion from Section 47 Partnership Act which recognised that after the dissolution of a firm by the death of a partner, the remaining partners may represent the dissolved firm including the interest of the deceased partner to recover any debt due to the firm.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1