Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 4 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Vyankatesh Oil Mills Co. vs N.V. Velmahomed on 8 July, 1927
Very great reliance was placed on the decision of
988
Blackwell, J., in the case of Vyankatesh Oil Mill Co. v. N.
V. Velamahomed (1) where the learned Judge held that the
suit was brought by an entity which had no legal existence
in the eyes of Indian law and there being no mode of
procedure whereby such an entity was permitted to sue in
India, the suit, as framed, was not maintainable at all. It
followed therefore that the amendment asked for could not be
treated as an amendment following upon a mere misdeseription
but must be treated as an application for the substitution
of the individual persons who composed the entity which the
law did not recognize.
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Amulakchand Mewaram vs Babulal Kanalal Taliwala on 7 March, 1933
"I must confess that I have some difficulty in
following both the reasons and the conclusions of the
learned Judge in that case. It was a case of a suit brought
in the name of a firm carrying on business outside British
India, and therefore not justified by the terms of 0. 30,
Civil P. C. and the learned Judge expressed the view that
the plaintiff firm was a nonexistent entity. But the order
which he subsequently made giving leave to amend seems
inconsistent with that finding."
Mura Mohideen vs V.O.A. Mohomed And Ors. on 3 November, 1954
In the case of Mura Mohideen v. V.O.A. Mohomed(1) the Madras
High Court dissented from the opinion expressed by
Blackwell, J. and the, learned Judges stated :