Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing M. Muthukumaraswami vs Kumar Textiles on 19 February, 1996

Gurmail Singh vs Rakesh Kumar on 30 August, 2012

Counsel for the appellant next contended that the loan had allegedly been advanced by partnership firm but the suit has been filed by Rakesh Kumar in his personal individual capacity and, therefore, suit is barred by Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) read with Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and Section 54 of the Contract Act. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely Tarachand versus Hulkar Mal and others, AIR 1979 Delhi 160; Chhotelal Ratnalal and another versus Rajmal Regular Second Appeal No. 1707 of 2012(O&M) -6- Milapchand and others, AIR (38) 1951 Nagpur 448; M/s Bholabhai Bhogilal versus Rattan Chand and others, AIR 1958 Punjab 260; Ashok Transport Agency versus Awadhesh Kumar and another, 1998(2) Judicial Reports (Civil & Rent) 776; Shah Velji Narsee versus Vasantrai Umiyashankar Pandya and Another, 2003(3) Mh. LJ 979; M.S.Sivakozhundu Mudaliar and others versus Amaravathi Finance Corporation, Karuru, 1980 AIR (Madras) 230; Firm Kanhaiya Singh Jagan Singh and Anr. Versus Ist A.D.J. Bijnor & Ors., 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 597; Firm Buta Mal Dev Raj versus Chanan Mal and others, AIR 1964 Punjab 270; M.Muthukumaraswami versus Kumar Textiles, AIR 1996 Madras 433; Gandhi and Co. versus Krishna Glass Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 Bombay 348; M/s Paras Industries, Ludhiana versus M/s Paras Special Machine Co., 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 540 and Purushottam and another versus Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 108.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - L N Mittal - Full Document
1