Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)

Maneklal Mansukhbhai vs Jwaladutt Pilani on 12 February, 1946

The same principle has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in Seth Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. Jwaladutt Rameshwar Pillani(3) in which it was pointed out that it was sufficient if the accounts were accepted and such acceptance might be inferred by conduct of parties. The contention on behalf of the defendants is that there has been a "stated" or "settled" account in this case and in the ab. sence of fraud, mistake or any other sufficient equitable ground it is not liable to be reopened at the instance of the plaintiff. In connection it is necessary to state that the expression "account (1) (1741) 2 Atk. 251. (2)[1750-51) 2 Ves. (Son.) 239.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bishnu Chandra Sen And Ors. vs Behari Lal Pradhan on 17 July, 1924

In the present case, the "settled account" between the parties falls within the second kind of "account stated" and it is to an account of this description that the equitable doctrine of "settled account" has to be considered. This statement of the law has been affirmed by Lord Wright in delivering the opinion of the Judicial Committee in Bishnu Chan v. Birdhari Lal(2) as the follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1