Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)
Satish Kumar vs Subhash Chander on 31 January, 2020 cites

Anil Saran vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 24 August, 1995

41. It would be apt to refer and rely upon observation of Anil Saran Vs State of Bihar (1995) 6SCC412 cited on behalf of defendant that "Partnership firm is not a legal entity but a legal mode of doing business by all the partners. Until the firm is dissolved as per law and the accounts settled, all the partners have dominion in common over the property and funds of the firm. Only after the settlement of accounts and allotment of respective share, the partner becomes owner of his share."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 55 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

51. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, in CS No. 9785/16 Satish Kumar vs Subhash Chander and ors Page No. 29 /31 which it was held that the scope of Civil cases are circumscribed by limitation placed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed and the court fees paid. Perusal of the plaint and the evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff would clearly depicts that plaintiff has not sought the declaration of the title and other allied relief and in the absence of such a prayer, relief of decree of possession can not be granted in favour of plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next