M.P.THAKKAR, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH
Konkan Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Govind Kamat Tarkar – Respondent
Judgment
VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- Has justice become the lip-aim of Courts instead of their life aim? Instead of dispensing justice is justice being dispensed with? Is it a fact that only the spelling of the word (justice) is remembered and the content of the concept is forgotten? Were it not so, would a Court in its professed anxiety to do justice, dismiss a suit. as incompetent on the ground that a sum of Rs. 100/- ordered to be paid as costs whilst granting leave to withdraw the earlier suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was deposited after the institution of the fresh suit and not before the institution thereof?
2. Appellant firm instituted a suit against the respondents. On the date of the institution of the said suit the appellant-firm had not been registered under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the suit was liable to fail on this technical ground. The appellant firm, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That application was, granted by the Court. The operative part of the Order dated September
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.