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

1929 Supreme(SC) 20

LORD CARSON, SIR CHARLES SARGANT, VISCOUNT DUNEDIN
JWALADUTT R. PILLANI – Appellant
Versus
BANSILAL MOTILAL – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:Lattey & Dawe. Solicitors for respondent: T. L. Wilson & Co.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 154 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction (March 29, 1927) affirming a decree of the Court in its Original Jurisdiction (August 26, 1926).

The question upon the appeal was whether the appellant was liable upon a promissory note drawn in favour of the respondent by a partnership firm in which the appellant at the date of the note had ceased to be a partner, The promissory note was in discharge of one drawn before the dissolution. The respondent was found not to have had notice of the dissolution, though public notice by advertisement had been given.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Appellate Court, affirming Taleyarkhan J., held the appellant liable. The learned judges (Martin

C.J. and Blackwell J.) were of opinion that the case being on the original side English law applied in the absence of Indian legislation, and that under that law old customers of a firm were not affected by a dissolution of which they had no notice. In their view s. 264 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which did not apply in terms, did not apply by inference.

1929. Feb. 11, 12. W. A. Greene K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the ap












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