Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Section 45 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 47 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
V. Venkatanarayana Pillai vs V. Subbammal And Anr. on 12 March, 1912
Take for example the case of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatanarayana Pillai v. Subbammal, ILR 38 Mad 406: (AIR 1915 PC 124). In that case, the appellant who was the reversioner before the Privy Council brought a suit for a declaration that the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant was invalid and did not affect his reversionary interest. The presumptive reversioner died during the pendency of the appeal in the Privy Council. An application was made by the next presumptive heir to be brought on record.
Abdul Samad And Ors. vs Wasal And Ors. on 4 December, 1956
In Abdul Samad v. Wasal, AIR 1957 Raj 302, I have taken the view that the words legal representatives' must be construed as including those who are in a position to carry on further proceedings in the suit. Now in finding an answer to these questions, I may refer to Section 47 of the Partnership Act. Section 47 lays down that
"after the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners, continue notwithstanding the dissolution, so tar as may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the firm and to complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the dissolution....''
This section runs on the same lines as Section 38 of the English Partnership Act. In this case when Magan Lal died partnership came to an end.
Firm Brij Kishore Ram Sarup vs Sheo Charan Lal on 22 September, 1937
There is another Single Bench judgment of the same High Court in Firm Brij Kishore Ram Sarup v. Sheo Charan Lal, AIR 1938 All 69 taking a contrary view.
Gobind Prasad vs Chandar Sekhar on 22 March, 1887
The Allahabad High Court recognised this in Gobind Prasad v. Chandar Sekhar, ILR 9 All 486 at p. 490. In spite of the provisions of Section 45 of the Contract Act, Edge, C. J. observed, as follows :
Monmohan Panday And Ors. vs Bidhu Bhusan Ray Chowdhury And Ors. on 22 March, 1918
The Calcutta High Court in Monmohan Panday v. Bidhu Bhushan Ray Chowdhury, 48 Ind, Cas 309: (AIR 1918 Cal 160) has taken the view that Order 30, Rule 4, does not help the plaintiffs as that rule applied only to a case where the suit is brought in the name of the firm.