Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.71 seconds)
A.R.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar And Anr. vs P.N.M.M. Palaniappa Chettiar And Ors. on 2 September, 1947 cites

Gopala Chetty vs Vijayaraghavachariar on 9 March, 1922

811 and Debesh Chandra Mukerjee v. Benoy Krishna Banerjee (1939) 43 Gal.W.N. 1214 though in the latter case Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar (1922) 43 M.L.J. 305 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 378 (P.C.) was not referred to. The learned Judges there laid down the general rule that a separate claim for contribution would not ordinarily lie in the absence of a prayer for general accounting ; but they seemed to consider that a suit for contribution might lie if no inequity would result from it ; e.g., if the accounts were before the Court and it appeared from them that the plaintiff was justly entitled to contribution towards the liability that he had met.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Chockalingam Chettiar vs Meyappa Chettiar And Ors. on 28 January, 1938

Reference was made in the judgments in Chockalinga Chettiar v. Meyyappa Chettiar (1938) 2 M.L.J. 287, to the pious obligation theory ; but the case against the second plaintiff is much stronger than any based on the pious obligation theory ; for the plaintiffs are members of a Nattukottai Chetty trading family in which the manager is entitled to utilise the assets of the family for conducting a family business ; and every member of the family becomes liable in respect of his share of the family property for the trade debts of the family. The position has been summarised by Mayne (10th Edition, paragraph 308-A) thus:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1