Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.037 seconds)

Nov 08 1966 (HC)

Kelu Sahu and ors. Vs. Hadibandhu Sahu and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-08-1966

Reported in : AIR1968Ori18; 33(1967)CLT825

..... with that shop. further pleas were also taken that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-registration of the firm under the indian partnership act.2. the learned munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the amount of rs. 2,236.59 shown as balance dues of the year 1958 had not been satisfactorily proved. the ..... learned lower appellate court rejected the technical objections on the ground of nonjoinder of parties and non-maintain ability of the suit under section 69 of the partnership act. it decreed the plaintiff suit holding that plaintiffs satisfactorily established that there were arrear dues in respect of the transactions of the year 1958. defendants have filed the second appeal ..... record in saying that the defendants admitted this position.7. i have already stated that law does not prescribe any particular form of corroboration. any relevant evidence under the evidence act, if accepted as true, can corroborate the entry. ext. 5 is the khata account of the year 1958 the individual entries of credit transactions and payments have not been ..... (ext. 2 series) signed by kelu sahu (defendant no. 1). all that the law requires is that the entries must be corroborated. any evidence which is relevant under the evidence act would be sufficient for the purpose of corroboration. no particular form of evidence is necessary. the quantum of evidence required for corroboration would vary in each case. the materials for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1966 (HC)

Basudeo Lal Modi and ors. Vs. Madanlal Chhapolia and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-05-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Ori107

..... family trade noperam ramgopal ceased to function and each branch carried on its separate business and sometime thereafter the two branches carried on business in partnership; their point is that the suit loan taken by defendant no. 2 ramkumar was so taken on behalf of joint family including himself, and ..... incorporation dated 8-8-1944 by which the assistant registrar of joint stock companies, bengal certified it was a limited company incorporated under the indian companies act of 1913. the appellant-defendants also relied on the articles and memorandum of association of noperam ramgopal limited ext. e. they also relied ..... entity in that it was converted from its status as a joint family firm to a limited company noperam ramgopal limited incorporated under the indian companies act.15. in the ultimate analysis of the evidence therefore the position appears to be this: after partition in 1944 the business continued to ..... the loan in the said money suit (that is to say, september 23, 1949); that it was a company registered and incorporated under the indian companies act; & further that the members of the said two branches of the family did not constitute a joint hindu family on september 23, 1949 ..... of the trial court so far as not granting their claim for interest pendente lite, the plaintiffs relied on section 79 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, which provides that when interest at a specified rate is expressly made payable on a promissory note or bill of exchange, interest shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

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