Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)Section 29 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
(v) That in the instant case the application i.e. the Chamber Summons
filed by the Applicants is not for substitution of the heirs of the original
Defendant who are already brought on record but is an application for being
impleaded as the Defendants which would not be permissible whilst the heirs
are on record. Reliance is sought to be placed on the Judgment of the Apex
Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon3
Khemchand Shankar Choudharyand ... vs Vishnu Hari Patil And Others on 3 December, 1982
We are therefore in respectful agreement with the view of the
Learned Single Judge expressed in the impugned order as regards the
application of the Judgment in Akkabai's case and his interpretation of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Khemchand's case.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
In Thomson Press India Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court was again
concerned with an application for impleadment filed by a purchaser pendent
lite in a Suit for specific performance of a prior Agreement to Sale / Contract
for Sale (CFS) filed by the buyer under the said CFS against the original
owner/transferor pendent lite. In the said case the transferee pendente lite
had purchased the entire property pending the Suit from the Respondent No.2
who had made a statement before the court that till disposal of the Suit the
property in question would not be transferred or alienated. However, whilst
the said Suit was pending, 5 Sale Deeds were executed by the Defendants i.e.
the Respondent No.2 in favour of Thomson Press India Ltd. The Apex Court
held that since the transferee was neither bonafide nor without notice of prior
CFS, the Appellant Thomson Press was not protected under Section 19 of the
Specific Relief Act against the specific performance of the prior Agreement
(CFS). The Apex Court further observed that if the purchaser pendente lite is
not made a party to the pending Suit, there may be a situation where the
transferor pendente lite may not defend the title properly as he has no interest
remaining or may collude with the Plaintiff in which case the interest of
purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. The Apex Court further held that
mmj 35 of 45
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:25:16 :::
APPEAL-368&ors-17
purchaser pendente lite may be impleaded in such Suit as decree for specific
performance of prior CFS can only be enforced against him as he holds title /
interest which is the subject matter of the prior CFS and the original owner
does not hold it any more.
Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953
22 The Apex Court thereafter referred to the Judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Kafiladdin Vs. Samiruddin (AIR 1931 Cal 67) and its
earlier judgments in Durga Prasad Vs. Deep Chand (AIR 1954 Sc 75), R. C.
Chandiok Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal ((1970) 3 SCC 140), Dwarka Prasad Singh
Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh ((1973) 1 SCC 179) and held that Thomson India
Ltd be added as party Defendant in the Suit. Paragraphs 37, 44, 45, 54, 55
and 56 of the said Judgment are material and are reproduced hereinunder:
R. C. Chandiok & Anr vs Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors on 12 October, 1970
22 The Apex Court thereafter referred to the Judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Kafiladdin Vs. Samiruddin (AIR 1931 Cal 67) and its
earlier judgments in Durga Prasad Vs. Deep Chand (AIR 1954 Sc 75), R. C.
Chandiok Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal ((1970) 3 SCC 140), Dwarka Prasad Singh
Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh ((1973) 1 SCC 179) and held that Thomson India
Ltd be added as party Defendant in the Suit. Paragraphs 37, 44, 45, 54, 55
and 56 of the said Judgment are material and are reproduced hereinunder:
Dwarka Prasad Singh & Others vs Harikant Prasad Singh & Others on 29 November, 1972
22 The Apex Court thereafter referred to the Judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Kafiladdin Vs. Samiruddin (AIR 1931 Cal 67) and its
earlier judgments in Durga Prasad Vs. Deep Chand (AIR 1954 Sc 75), R. C.
Chandiok Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal ((1970) 3 SCC 140), Dwarka Prasad Singh
Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh ((1973) 1 SCC 179) and held that Thomson India
Ltd be added as party Defendant in the Suit. Paragraphs 37, 44, 45, 54, 55
and 56 of the said Judgment are material and are reproduced hereinunder:
Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs Som Dass (Deceased) Through His Chela ... on 28 August, 1975
in Amit Kumar Shaw and Thomson Press India Ltd are sought to be relied
upon to contend that the instant case is not a case of substitution of the heirs
of the original Defendant on account of devolution of interest, but is one for
impleadment in addition to the heirs who are already brought on record. The
judgment in Amit Kumar Shaw is also sought to be relied upon to contend that
the said judgment was rendered in the absence of any contest as inspite of
notice issued no appearance was entered on behalf of the Respondents. In our
view, the said fact namely the application not being for substitution and the
judgment in Amit Kumar Shaw being rendered in the absence of the
Respondents would not detract from what has been held by the Apex Court
and the proposition of law laid down therein. In our view, the proposition of
law laid down in the judgments (supra) cements the case of the Applicants for
impleadment.