Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Ganesh Mal And Anr. vs Meghraj And Anr. on 27 October, 1966 cites

Seth Nandaramdas Atmaram By Agent ... vs Zulika Bibi And Ors. on 23 February, 1943

This was all right so far as it went, and it was the Munsiff who was in error at that stage in having thrown out the plaintiff's case on the ground of limitation even though no new party applied to be impleaded as a party in the case, the suit being of course a representative suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reference may be made at this place to Nandaramdas v. Zulika Bibi, AIR 1943 Mad 531. It was held in this case that a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to be properly framed must be instituted on behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors and not merely for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, and that it would be further necessary in such a suit to obtain the permission of the court to sue in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., and it was further held that where the suit was wrongly framed and the permission of the court had not been obtained under Order 1, Rule 8, it was liable to be summarily dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hubli Panjarapole And Ors. vs Saraswatevva Bayappa Kala Ghatki on 29 August, 1952

9. For the opposite view, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Hubli Panjarapole v. Saraswatevva, AIR 1953 Bom. 334. In that case the suit was first filed against an unregistered association with numerous members through its chairman by the plaintiff. A plea was raised that the suit was incompetent as it was not filed in accordance with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The suit was thrown out as improperly framed. Permission to sue was then applied for under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and this was granted subsequently. It was under these circumstances that the question was raised that the suit was barred by limitation and it was thrown out on the ground that it was lawfully brought against the association only after leave was granted under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and Section 22 of the Limitation Act was clearly attracted into application.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Synabhog Marthandu Rao (Died) vs Rao Bahadur Chenna Basappa Kuruba Gond ... on 31 March, 1950

Such a suit if brought need not be representative at all, for what the plaintiff really seeks in a suit of this nature is to avoid the fraudulent transaction which is set up against him as defeating his own right and not the general right of the creditors as a whole, Reference may be made in support of this view to Shrimal v. Hiralal, AIR 1938 Bom 289, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 280 (supra), Radhanath v. Madhusudan, AIR 1958 Orissa 58, and U. Maung Nge v. P. L. S. P. Chettiar Firm, AIR 1934 Rang 200.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shrimal Kasturchand Marwadi vs Hiralal Hansraj Marwadi on 16 September, 1937

Such a suit if brought need not be representative at all, for what the plaintiff really seeks in a suit of this nature is to avoid the fraudulent transaction which is set up against him as defeating his own right and not the general right of the creditors as a whole, Reference may be made in support of this view to Shrimal v. Hiralal, AIR 1938 Bom 289, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 280 (supra), Radhanath v. Madhusudan, AIR 1958 Orissa 58, and U. Maung Nge v. P. L. S. P. Chettiar Firm, AIR 1934 Rang 200.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1