Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Ganeshnarayan Jagdamba Prasad vs Indian Textile Syndicate on 24 June, 1953
"13. The reliance placed by Mr.Sen on the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:18:34 :::
4 nmis5-10
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Ganeshnarayan Jagdamba Prasad v. Indian Textile
Sybdicate, A.I.R. 1954 Bom.91, is totally misplaced. This
decision turns on the interpretation of the provisions of
Order 21, Rule 50 which provides that in case of partners
who have not been served, the decree cannot be executed
against them without leave of the Court and it is open to
the partners to dispute their liability under the decree and
if they so dispute their liability, has to be determined as if it
was a dispute in the suit itself. The Division Bench
following certain English cases held that in the case of a
decree against a firm, the fact that the partner has not
been served personally operates as stay of execution of
the decree against him and prevent issuance of insolvency
notice against such partner. This decision has no
application to the facts of the present case."
Hemant M. Nabar And Ors. vs M/S. Farohar And Co. And Ors. on 29 March, 2001
The submission is not well founded. The question in that case was whether
the insolvency notice under section 91 of the Act of 1909 can be set aside
on the ground that the decree was not enforceable for want of leave of the
Court under order 21 rule 22 of the C.P.C. Order 21 rule 22 is entirely
different from order 21 rule 50. The purpose of the two provisions are also
entirely different.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
1