Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Article 106 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 43 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopala Chetty vs Vijayaraghavachariar on 9 March, 1922
7. The second contention alone has been the subject matter of consideration by the court below. The plea of the defendant regarding the non-maintainability of the suit, which was rested on the well known decision of the Privy Council in --'Gopal Chetty v. L. G, Vijayaraghavachariar' AIR 1922 PC 115 (A) was countered by the plaintiff raising an argument that the item or liability sued on was really distinct from the partnership of T. K. M. P. Rajabathar Chetti Palani Chetti and Co. This contention was accepted by the learned Additional City Civil Judge, who decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff.
Chockalingam Chettiar vs Meyappa Chettiar And Ors. on 28 January, 1938
For this position he placed reliance on a decision in -- 'Chockalingam Chettiar v. Meyappa Chettiar', AIR 1939 Mad 228 (B).
A.R.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar And Anr. vs P.N.M.M. Palaniappa Chettiar And Ors. on 2 September, 1947
Counsel for the appellants relied on a later decision of a Bench of this court in Meyyappa Chettiar v. Palaniappa Chettiar', AIR 1949 Mad 109 (2) (C), as dissenting from the earlier ruling, and holding that the decision in 'AIR 1922 PC 115 (A), was as much applicable to liabilities as to assets, and that the fact that the liabilities took the form of a joint and several decree against the partners makes no difference to the principle. In view of the conflict between these two decisions, the learned Judge has referred the appeal itself to be heard by a Full Bench.
Ramaswami Pillai And Ors. vs V.R.M.K. Muthukaruppan Chetty And Ors. on 25 November, 1924
21. Subsequent to the Privy Council decision, there are two rulings of this court in -- 'Ramaswami Pillai v. Muthukaruppan Chetty', AIR 1925 Mad 737 (L) and -- 'Santhanakrishna Naidu v. Chellappa Aiyar', AIR 1927 Mad 650 (M), the one in 1925 and the other in 1927 but these do not call for any detailed consideration on this occasion. The first decision arose out of a suit after dissolution for one item of the partnership account, but filed at a time when a suit for general accounts was not barred/ The learned Judges laid down that a suit for partial accounts would be entertained1 only in exceptional cases and that the case before them did not fall within that exception, but granted to the plaintiff leave to amend his plaint by converting the suit into one for general accounts on payment of the costs incurred by the defendant upto that date. In the second case Krishnan and Odgers JJ. also held that such a suit did not lie, but refused to permit the plaintiff to amend the suit into one for general accounts.
K.V. Santhanakrishna Naidu And Anr. vs K.S. Chellappa Aiyar on 9 November, 1926
21. Subsequent to the Privy Council decision, there are two rulings of this court in -- 'Ramaswami Pillai v. Muthukaruppan Chetty', AIR 1925 Mad 737 (L) and -- 'Santhanakrishna Naidu v. Chellappa Aiyar', AIR 1927 Mad 650 (M), the one in 1925 and the other in 1927 but these do not call for any detailed consideration on this occasion. The first decision arose out of a suit after dissolution for one item of the partnership account, but filed at a time when a suit for general accounts was not barred/ The learned Judges laid down that a suit for partial accounts would be entertained1 only in exceptional cases and that the case before them did not fall within that exception, but granted to the plaintiff leave to amend his plaint by converting the suit into one for general accounts on payment of the costs incurred by the defendant upto that date. In the second case Krishnan and Odgers JJ. also held that such a suit did not lie, but refused to permit the plaintiff to amend the suit into one for general accounts.
Arunachalam Servai vs K. Nottam Beer Varu Rowther on 31 January, 1928
22. The next decision bearing upon the question-now under discussion is that in -- "Arunachalam Servai v. Nottam Beer Varu Rowther', AIR 1928 Mad 588 (N). The suit was for contribution from the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant having been joint debtors under a decree, the plaintiff had been compelled to pay for the satisfaction and discharge of that decree over and above the amount payable for his share. The defence raised was that the debt in respect of which the decree was passed was a debt due by a partnership in which the plaintiff and defendant were partners and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for contribution, and could, if at all, file a suit only for the taking of the partnership accounts. The judgment of the court, consisting of Wallace and Srinivasa Aiyangar JJ. was delivered by Srinivasa Aiyangar J. who said,
"Prima facie, when there is a decree against two persons jointly and severally, each is liable to contribute equally to discharge the decree, and there is always in such cases an implied contract of indemnity that, if one of them should be compelled to pay up more than his share the other is bound to make good the same. This is, however, on the basis that the obligations of the defendant 'inter se' are determined only by the decree and are not subject to any other rights or obligations. No doubt if it should be established that, having reference to the facts of the particular case, such implied contract as between co-judgment-debtors should be deemed to be displaced, then the legal principle may not be applicable ..... Again it was open to the defendant to set up and prove that as a fact the plaintiff discharged the decree not from his own funds but only from partnership moneys and that therefore the very cause of action for the plaintiff failed.
Thiruvengada Mudaliar And Anr. vs S. Sadagopa Mudaliar on 11 March, 1910
These learned Judges affirmed the decision of Kumaraswami Sastri J. stating that they were not prepared to go behind the" earlier decisions of this court in --- 'Sokkanadha Vannimmundar v. Sokkanadha Vannimundar', 28 Mad 344 (D); -- Thiruvengada Mudaliar v. Sadagopa Mudaliar', 34 Mad 112 (E) and -- 'China Kondiah v. Narasappa Naidu', AIR 1914 Mad 295 (F), which laid down that the receipts of assets after dissolution gave rise to a fresh cause of action, to enable a partner to file a suit for a share in such assets, notwithstanding that a general suit for accounts was barred by limitation.