SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 127

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







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top