Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Pandiri Veeranna vs Grandhi Veerabhadraswami Alias ... on 20 February, 1918
Then remains the question: Does not the endorsement of Govindaswami stand on a footing different from her own endorsement? I think not. These two were partners on the date the second endorsement was made. It has been held that an acknowledgment or a payment by a partner without special authority is binding upon the other partner: P. Veeranna v. Veerabhadraswami [1918] 41 Mad. 427. Under Section 21, a partner ipso facto has no authority to acknowledge or to make a part payment; but if he has general authority to contract; debts or make payments he has implied authority to keep the debt alive and it is unnecessary to make out special authority. This is the effect of the case to which I have referred. I therefore hold that the plaintiff's claim based on the notes of 1914 is not barred by limitation.
Section 21 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ramakrishna Doss Chandrathna Doss vs P. Kesavalu Chetty And Three Ors. on 14 March, 1927
16. These memoranda require registration and are inadmissible in evidence and the transaction is not valid as a mortgage, (see my recent judgments in Ramakrishna Doss v. Kesavulu Chetty A.I.R. 1927 Mad.
S. Alwar Chetty vs K. Jagannatha Aiyar And 4 Ors. on 21 November, 1927
1145 and in Alwar Chetty v. Jagannadha Aiyar 54 M.L.J. 109.
1