Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (4.02 seconds)
Dasari Ramachandra Rao, vs Koripalli Venkata Rao, on 7 January, 2021 cites

The Iii Income Tax Officer,Circle-I, ... vs Arunagiri Chettiar on 7 May, 1996

(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court again referred the principles in Income Tax Officer (III), Circle-I, Salem v. Arunagiri Chettiar (referred supra), Sahu Rajeshwar Nath vs Income-Tax Officer C-Ward (referred supra) and Her Highness Maharani Mandalsa Devi and others v. M. Ramnaram Private Limited and others14, while considering the scope of Order XXI Rule 50 C.P.C and observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Ashutosh vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 30 August, 2005

MSM,J CRP_1322_2014 23 Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, deals with liability of a partner for acts of the firm, every partners is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Thus, it is clear from Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act that, when the debt was contracted prior to retirement of these petitioners as partners from the firm subsequent to March, 2004, still, they are liable to pay the debt due to the decree holder, as the liability was incurred prior to their retirement. The Trial Court adverted to the decision of the Apex Court in Ashutosh v. State of Rajasthan (referred supra) and also provisions of Indian Partnership Act, concluded that the personal property is also liable for the debt of the firm when the debt was contracted prior to retirement of the petitioners as partners from the firm, consequently, I find no error in the under challenge warranting interference of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 29 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next