Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
State Bank Of India vs Ramakrishna Pandurang Barve And Anr. on 27 July, 1982 cites

Purushottam Umedbhai & Co vs M/S. Manilal And Sons (In Connected ... on 7 October, 1960

4. It is an admitted position that the cause of action was for the recovery of the partnership debt and the liability of each of the defendants arose because of the partnership debt. The basic principle operative in the matters of partnership is that a firm or partnership is not a legal person but is a compendious name for the partners who become related because of the agreement of partnership. When a suit is brought against a firm, the legal effect is that it is brought, though in the name of the firm, against all those who are the partners. (See Purushottam & Co. v. Manilal & Sons. ). A decree made in such a suit in law is against all the partners. Therefore, the position in law with regard to suits against partnership for recovery of debts due does not admit any doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 64 - S J Imam - Full Document

Gambhir Mal Pandiya vs J. K. Jote Mills Co., Ltd., Kanpur And ... on 17 April, 1962

5. The provisions O. XXX, R. 1 as well as the provisions of O. XXI. R. 50 of the Civil P. C. go to indicate that law contemplates, in such matters, suit to lie only against partnership firms. The other Rules of O. XXX further indicate that a person summoned as partner can prove that he is not a partner can prove that he is not a partner and never was: but if he raises that defence, he cannot defend the firm. Persons who admit that they are partners may defend the firm. take as many pleas as they like but cannot enter upon issues between themselves. When the decree is passed, it is against the firm. Such a decree is capable of being executed against the property of the partnership and also against two classes of persons individually, being persons who appeared in answer to summons served on them as partners and either admitted that they were partners or were found to be so and persons who were summoned as partners but stayed away, (See Gambhir Mal v. J. K. Jute Mills, ). The decree made in such suit clearly goes to involve the partnership and the persons who were summoned with regard to their liability under the decree. It should follow that when that decree is under challenge for reason of being inadequate or otherwise, the partnership or all admitted partners should necessarily be parties for effectually dealing with such a challenge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1