Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Delson Davis P vs Thrissur District ...
51. In AIR 1932 Bom 334(H), in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 50 (2) Mirza, J. did not allow the defence of the person, who was served with a notice, to the effect that he was not a partner in the firm and alternatively that the firm was not liable for the transaction in suit. He quoted the observations of Stirling, L. J. "in Davis v. Hyman & Co., (U) (supra) with' out comments and the observations of Scrutton L. J. in Weir & Co. v. McVicar & Co. (V) (supra) and came to the conclusion that,
"if the analogy of that case (i.e. Weir & Co. v. McVicar & Co. (V), is applicable to the present case, it is not open to Mr. Cooper to rely upon the alternative defence raised in issue 3."
Section 19 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Rana Harkishandas Lallubhai And Ors. vs Rana Gulabdas Kalyandas And Anr. on 19 August, 1955
This decision in Rana Harkishandas Lallubhai v. Rana Gulabdas Kalyandas (Z1), has discussed all the relevant case law, if I may say so with respect, with great care, and I do not, therefore, propose myself to go in any greater detail to a consideration of the cases referred to therein except saying that I am In entire agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges in this case.
Chhattoo Lal Misser And Company vs Naraindas Baijnath Prasad on 4 September, 1928
The learned Judge observed that,
"It is clear from the judgment of Chhattoo Lal Misser & Co. v. Naraindas Baijnath Prasad (W), that the alternative defence under the United Provinces Court of Wards Act was permitted to the alleged partner in the firm only on the ground that it was a personal defence. What is sought in the present case to do is to challenge the decree passed against the firm on general grounds. In my judgment this cannot be permitted."
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jagat Chandra Bhattacharyya And Ors. vs Gunny Hajee Ahmed on 27 July, 1925
It may be pointed out here that Agarwala J. thought that no question of any contrary decisions would arise in such an instance. 1 have been unable to agree with that view of his, lor I agree with the view taken by Das J. that under such circumstances there would be two contrary decisions in the same case if a partner were to be allowed to raise the question of liability of a general nature under the decree, for in that case if his objections were to prevail there would certainly be nothing other than a modification of the decree to that extent to which his plea has been allowed.
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Purshottam Lal Jaitly vs W.T. Henley'S Telegraph Works, Ltd. And ... on 21 April, 1933
Order 21, Rule 50, should, in my opinion, be read along with the provisions of Order 30. Order 30 deals with the procedure to be adopted in suits by or against firms; whilst this rule deals with the mode of execution of decrees which have been obtained against a firm named as such. As observed in Purshottam Lal Jaitly v. W. T. Henley's Telegraph Works Ltd., AIR 1933 All 523 (A):