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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 137

SINHA
PARASRAM HARNANDRAI – Appellant
Versus
CHITANDAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, GOURI MITRA, H.C.GHOSH

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for revocation of leave which has been granted to the plff. , under the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The facts are briefly as follows: There is a shop, situate at Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, in Delhi, under the name and style of 'peramal Chetandas. The plff. is a registered partnership firm, carrying on business under the name and style of Parasram Harnandrai at 129 Cotton Street, Calcutta and also at Delhi. The plff. firm claims the said business of 'peramal Chetandas' to be a partnership of which the partnership firm is one of the partners. The deft. Chetandas says that he is the sole owner of the business which bears his own name and that of his father Peramal. The process by which the plff. firm claims to have become a partner is set out in the plaint and is as follows: (1) In or about 5-3-1945, one Rajinder Kumar, Bhuramal and Mangalchand, entered into a 'verbal agreement in Calcutta, for the purpose of carrying on business in co-partnership under the name and style of 'gourishankar Radheshyam. ' (2) In such an agreement, Rajinder Kumar was really representing the plff. firm. (3) The plff. firm became agents of Gourisha




















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