Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: formation of contract indian contract act Court: allahabad Year: 1924 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.032 seconds)

Feb 14 1924 (PC)

Muhammad Abdul Jalil Vs. Moti Ram

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-14-1924

Reported in : (1924)ILR46All509

..... was that the company was an illegal association inasmuch as it consisted of more than 20 persons and therefore violated the conditions of section 4 of the indian companies act of 1882 which prohibits the formation of an unregistered company in excess of that number. if, in our opinion, the appellant is wrong in that contention then the appeal must fail. the companies ..... exceed 20 if certain persons, presumably members of a joint hindu family and so found by the judge, were in fact separate and thus capable of being regarded as separate contracting parties. the learned subordinate judge considered all, the arguments put forward and came to the conclusion that the persons alleged to be joint were in truth joint and could be ..... ganeshi lal, in respect of whatever interest he happened to hold in the company through her as trustee. again, as regards moti ram, it is to be noted that the contracting person, in the first instance, was the same moti ram who had a personal interest in the company, and the appellant and har prasad were bound to account to him ..... and also one of agency--it is dated the 20th of august, 1910--and omitting for a moment the consideration of the legality or otherwise of the inception of the contract, the liability to account was in that agreement clearly provided for, nor is there any dispute as to the actual failure to deliver accounts throughout the period as to which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1924 (PC)

Motiram Vs. Kunwar Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-14-1924

Reported in : AIR1924All414; 78Ind.Cas.441

..... was that the company was an illegal association inasmuch as it consisted of more than 20 persons and, therefore, violated the conditions of section 4 of the indian companies act of 1882 which prohibits the formation of an unregistered company in excess of that number. if, in our opinion, the appellant is wrong in that contention, then the appeal must fail. the companies ..... exceed 20 if certain persons, presumably members of a joint hindu family and so found by the judge, were in fact separate and thus capable of being regarded as separate contracting parties. the learned subordinate judge considered all the arguments put forward and came to the conclusion that the persons alleged to be joint were in truth joint and could be ..... ganeshi lal, in respect of whatever interest he happened to hold in the company through her as trustee. again, as regards moti ram it is to be noted that the contracting person in the first instance was the same moti earn who had a personal interest in the company and the appellant and har prasad were bound to account to him ..... and also one of agency--it is dated the 20th of august 1910 and, omitting for a moment the consideration of the legality or otherwise of the inception of the contract, the liability to account was in that agreement clearly provided for, nor is there any dispute as to the actual failure to deliver accounts throughout the period as to which .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //