Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1959 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.021 seconds)

Feb 26 1959 (HC)

Firm Ramnath Ramachandra Vs. Firm Bhagatram and Co., Madanganj

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-26-1959

Reported in : AIR1959Raj149

..... full implication of the question raised before us, it would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to it.4. the plaintiffs-respondents formed a partnership firm carrying on business at madanganj in kishangarh. the defendants-appellants constituted a hindu joint family firm carrying on business at vijainagar. the plaintiffs' case was, that the defendants made ..... as including even foreign courts and a narrow interpretation should not be placed on the term 'court.' according to learned counsel, that section, just like section 14 of the indian limitation act, is based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience and there is no reason why a plaintiff, who has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding in good ..... or other cause of the like nature.17. in the same case, it was pointed out by mr. jayakar who appeared for the opposite side that section 41 of the indian evidence act also contained the simple word 'court' and still it was understood to include foreign courts. that argument was repelled by the learned judges by saying that 'the word 'competent ..... -3-1958 and at that time it was urged by learned counsel for appellants that the trial court had committed an error in giving benefit of section 14 of the indian limitation act since the courts at beawar and at ajmer were 'foreign courts' and s, 14 was not applicable to civil proceedings in foreign courts.learned counsel for respondents urged in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1959 (HC)

Gordhansingh and ors. Vs. Suwalal and Kalyanbux and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-05-1959

Reported in : AIR1959Raj156

..... to the conclusion that the primary intention of the parties was to record a promise, for in para 4 of the plaint it is asserted:'after understanding the partnership accounts, the defendant found a balance of rs. 1290/14/3 due against him in favour of the plaintiffs and handed over a writing about it to the ..... hearing the parties, it held that there was no intention to create a promissory note, that all that the parties intended was to record the fact that the partnership had come to an end, that the accounts were settled and that a sum of rs. 1290/14/3 was found due against the defendant and that the ..... lks ge vkids ikl tek djk nsaxsa rk- z24&5&52 n% xkso/kzu flag pksgku izks-&jh; pksgku vk;y~ ehy 'kkgiqjka(in respect of the partnership in chauhan oil mill z have understood the accounts upto date and rs. 1290/14/3 are due against me which i shall deposit with you). 14. this ..... the recovery of sum of rs. 1,743/- on the allegation that they and the defendant ran an oil mill in-partnership for some time on certain terms mentioned in the plaint and that this partnership was dissolved on 24-5-52, and an accounting took place between the parties as a result of which a sum of ..... the english courts of appeal found themselves bound to give a restricted' meaning to the much wider definition in the english stamp act. it will have the effect of overruling some decisions in the indian courts notably the case of manick chand v. jomoona doss ilr 8 cal 645 where the defendant had given a sale note .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1959 (HC)

Koodi Vs. Baboo and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-05-1959

Reported in : AIR1959Raj127

..... inasmuch as the wording of section 11 of the code of civil procedure is substantially the same. in that case. a and b were partners. the partnership was then dissolved and a deed of dissolution was drawn up between the parties. thereafter a executed a bond in favour of b for the amount found ..... question that falls to be decided is an interesting one. in this connection. if may refer to the provisions contained in sections 9 to 11 of the indian oaths act, 1873, (no. x of 1873). 'section 9 provides that if any party to a judicial proceeding offers to be bound by a special oath or ..... the special oath offered by him and accepted by the contesting respondent roshan, was given on the merits, because according to section 11 of the oaths act, the evidence thus given on oath by roshan, was conclusive proof of the matter in issue between the parties.the decision did not turn on any formal ..... careful & earnest consideration. it seems to me that although the plaintiff koodi will not be bound by virtue of anything said in section 11 of the oaths act, it must be remembered that after the oath was offered and accepted in due course by the party concerned, a judgment did follow and became final. ..... the matter in controversy between them. as already stated, the present plaintiff was not a party to the special oath. consequently, section 11 of the said act as such does not bind him.10. the question in these circumstances arises whether koodi would still be barred by the rule of res judicata from raising .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1959 (HC)

Firm Ramnath Ramchander Vs. Firm Bhagatram and Co.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-11-1959

Reported in : AIR1960Raj219

..... was admittedly presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation. the relevant facts may very shortly be stated as follows:--the plaintiffs-respondents, a partnership firm deal in the purchase and sale of gold, silver and yarn and also carry on business as commission agents. the defendants who are ..... question in the following two parts:--'(1) whether the plaintiffs could take advantage of section 15 of the kishangarh state limitation act (corresponding to section 14 of the indian limitation act) of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of ajmer-merwara, in a subsequent suit ..... (since reported in air 1959 raj 149):'whether advantage can be taken under section 15 of the kishangarh state limitation act comesponding to section 14 of the indian limitation act of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of the ajmer-merwara in subsequent suit in ..... purpose of determining the validity of agreements restricting choice of forum in connection with the interpretation of section 28 of the indian contract act being based upon considerations peculiar to the law and notions about contracts cannot be imported and adopted as conclusive for interpreting section 14 ..... the parties to file a suit in the particular court. a number of authorities were cited in support of these principles. reliance was placed on indian publishers ltd. v. aldridge, ilr 35 cal 728 for interpreting the words 'unable to entertain' as indicating inability to entertain the suit in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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